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

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

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?

I don’t think you have to remain silent about disagreeing, but we shouldn’t speak out against or criticize our leaders, IMO.  But in discussions, one should be able to express their views as long as it’s respectful and not hateful and that’s what I’ve seen done here.  I do appreciate reading your views too, kllindley!

[california boy]

4 hours ago, kllindley said:

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.  

Before you go off resigning from the Church, perhaps you should consider that what God has revealed to you concerning gender and marriage is correct principle for you personally and might be different for another.  

 

kjhg=-ewq[?vc 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 hours ago, kllindley said:

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

So can he make a mistake about discerning the will of God? 

[ALarson]

14 hours ago, kllindley said:

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?

I do believe they are mistaken in this case (they are fallible), but that's different than them being "unable to know what revelation is" (which what you originally stated).

I definitely do not believe they are lying, but I do believe the original policy was not inspired even though they believe it was.  All of the changes and now the revoking of it, is for me, confirmation that my feelings regarding it were correct.  I do know that the leaders had/have good intentions and that they love and care very much about the members.  I'm very grateful for the changes they've made.

Edited September 28, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, kllindley said:

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.

But there is a difference between President Nelson not being capable vs being mistaken in this matter.

Above when I asked:  "Does that include his statements regarding this policy?" You responded:

8 hours ago, kllindley said:

Capable of being mistaken or in error? Absolutely.  

So we both agree that President Nelson is capable of being mistaken or in error with respect to what he has taught about this policy.

8 hours ago, kllindley said:

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 crossed out the "n't" because I don't think it's what you meant.  Hope I'm right.  

Either way, I definitely believe that God is powerful enough to lead His Church.  But since the kind and loving mortals who also lead the church are fallible, we don't always hear Him or hear Him correctly (at every level, which is why I used "we").

I don't just believe in the concept of fallible prophets.  I actually believe that we are led by fallible prophets... in the past, today, and in the future.

8 hours ago, kllindley said:

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.  

I appreciate the empathy but I hope you aren't implying that I don't have the integrity to honor my personal spiritual testimony.  My personal spiritual testimony may be different than yours in that I accept that the good men who lead our church have, do, and will continue to err.  They will sometimes operate without all the light and knowledge they/we need.  So when they make mistakes, it would wrong for me to leave because of that.

While I believe that church leadership will one day teach that God accepts homosexual relationships, I do hope that you never have to feel that "extreme internal tension".  I've been through it.  It isn't fun.  But, if it happens, please work, study, and pray through it.  I was able to rebuild my faith and would want you to as well.

And I certainly hope you wouldn't leave the church.

[kllindley]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

I don’t think you have to remain silent about disagreeing, but we shouldn’t speak out against or criticize our leaders, IMO.  But in discussions, one should be able to express their views as long as it’s respectful and not hateful and that’s what I’ve seen done here.  I do appreciate reading your views too, kllindley!

I didn't say anytime should remain silent. I said "relatively private.". 

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I didn't say anytime should remain silent. I said "relatively private.". 

Ok, I understand.

So, what exactly do you feel some posters have done wrong here then?  Your posts are a bit confusing on that and I’m trying to understand more.

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Before you go off resigning from the Church, perhaps you should consider that what God has revealed to you concerning gender and marriage is correct principle for you personally and might be different for another.  

Are you suggesting that I haven't considered that? 

3 hours ago, california boy said:

kjhg=-ewq[?vc 

Possible typo?

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So can he make a mistake about discerning the will of God? 

Yep. 

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I do believe they are mistaken in this case (they are fallible), but that's different than them being "unable to know what revelation is" (which what you originally stated).

I don't understand that distinction.  Just saying that they are different is not persuasive. 

Quote

I definitely do not believe they are lying, but I do believe the original policy was not inspired even though they believe it was.  All of the changes and now the revoking of it, is for me, confirmation that my feelings regarding it were correct.  I do know that the leaders had/have good intentions and that they love and care very much about the members.  I'm very grateful for the changes they've made.

The fact that they believe it was inspired if you are correct that it isn't, would be a huge problem for me. I'm glad you are able to work through that discrepancy. 

Edited September 28, 2019 by kllindley

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

But there is a difference between President Nelson not being capable vs being mistaken in this matter.

A difference without a distinction to me. 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Above when I asked:  "Does that include his statements regarding this policy?" You responded:

So we both agree that President Nelson is capable of being mistaken or in error with respect to what he has taught about this policy.

I crossed out the "n't" because I don't think it's what you meant.  Hope I'm right.  

I did meant that if the Church is God's Church, but He lets the Leaders screw up as profoundly as you suggest (that the policy is not only uninspired, but directly in opposition to the Savior's teachings), That means to me that God must not be very effective in leading the Church.  

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Either way, I definitely believe that God is powerful enough to lead His Church.  But since the kind and loving mortals who also lead the church are fallible, we don't always hear Him or hear Him correctly (at every level, which is why I used "we").

I don't just believe in the concept of fallible prophets.  I actually believe that we are led by fallible prophets... in the past, today, and in the future.

Fallible means capable of being mistaken or erroneous. You seem to be using it to mean actually mistaken. I prefer to use the actual definition. 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I appreciate the empathy but I hope you aren't implying that I don't have the integrity to honor my personal spiritual testimony.  My personal spiritual testimony may be different than yours in that I accept that the good men who lead our church have, do, and will continue to err.  They will sometimes operate without all the light and knowledge they/we need.  So when they make mistakes, it would wrong for me to leave because of that.

Absolutely not implying anything about your integrity. I was talking about my own, and that is what I meant.  

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

While I believe that church leadership will one day teach that God accepts homosexual relationships, I do hope that you never have to feel that "extreme internal tension".  I've been through it.  It isn't fun.  But, if it happens, please work, study, and pray through it.  I was able to rebuild my faith and would want you to as well.

And I certainly hope you wouldn't leave the church.

I would, but can understand what you're saying. 

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, kllindley said:

A difference without a distinction to me. 

I did meant that if the Church is God's Church, but He lets the Leaders screw up as profoundly as you suggest (that the policy is not only uninspired, but directly in opposition to the Savior's teachings), That means to me that God must not be very effective in leading the Church.  

Fallible means capable of being mistaken or erroneous. You seem to be using it to mean actually mistaken. I prefer to use the actual definition. 

Absolutely not implying anything about your integrity. I was talking about my own, and that is what I meant.  

I would, but can understand what you're saying. 

No to the bold. The leaders aren't very effective in speaking for Him. Their problem, not God's. Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain, to me means thou shalt not speak for God, when He isn't speaking to you. I think this makes God more angry than many things we mortals do. 

Edited September 28, 2019 by Tacenda

[CV75]

22 hours 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?

 

Not necessarily, in my opinion. 

Yes, of course people can pray about “all things,” whatever they want, for whatever reason and from any angle. In the talk, President Nelson invites us to pray over any or all of the 5 principles and the topical examples (doctrine of marriage and the policy derived from that) he used to illustrate one or more of these five truths. There are also some underlying expectations about how we go about doing that from scripture and conference talks.

Summarizing from the Book of Mormon and D&C, we are taught to approach prayer with what I consider to be a healthy bias, or an aligned bias with a willingness to act on the confirmation. We make a determination and ask if is correct. Then we may receive a confirmation from the Holy Ghost, nothing (which is not a witness that the things is nor true) or a stupor of thought (the sign that that the thing we prayed about is not true or perhaps not expedient for us to know). The we act accordingly in line with the truths we have accepted.

For the sake of discussion, I will use @ALarson and @rockpond as archetypes. I do not know them and they seem to be posting anonymously, so please don’t take this too literally or personally.

My questions to ALarson were to ascertain his predisposition or bias, but he seemingly has a neutral approach to prayer, where he familiarized himself with all new policies and procedure equally and without bias, prays, and the Holy Ghost will tell him what is of God and what is not. This is an example of praying without bias (e.g. “I am open to inspiration about this policy; is it of God?”).

Rockpond seemed to describe his bias that God does not involve Himself in policy but delegates that to the prophets who are prone to make mistakes. There are two issues with is. First, the bias and the default question would be, “I feel this policy of men; is it?” Yet it is not positively aligned with what is being preached by the Lord’s servants. Second, the bias becomes conflicted when the question is, “I feel this policy is not of God; is it?” The only answer that is not a stupor of thought becomes is that it is not of God, but this does not align with the prophetic claim either.

Since God expects us to act on our spiritual confirmations, a confirmation about the policy would result in ministering to those families with regards to the baptism of their children. Or help individuals who have struggled over marriage and the policy find peace and move on to bigger and better things.

I’m not sure how people act on having their curiosity or turmoil assuaged by a negative confirmation about marriage and the policy. It seems that neither @AL nor @r have the keys to act. They might advise their bishops and stake presidents if they are invited into a discussion. They might minister by sharing their thoughts and feelings with ssm families or extended families. They might advocate for change, bear testimony, etc. But with a negative bias about marriage and the policy in relation to the Church’s position, they can only go so far in building the kingdom on these points.

In his talk, President Nelson used the correct doctrine of marriage (“I have a desire to believe faith or hope that the doctrine being taught is correct; is it?”) to support the policies that came by revelation or confirmation by the Holy Ghost (“I have a desire to believe, faith or hope that the policy is correct; is it?”). The bias here is expressed in terms of a desire to believe, faith or hope. When it has to do with the object of prayer, there has to be additional alignment, or a desire to align, with the prophet, whether that is invitation is extended by Alma in his day to his contemporaries (Alma 32), by Moroni to those of a future day (Moroni 10), or by President Nelson in our time (the talk).

When we pray with this kind of bias, President Nelson expresses confidence that the Spirit will bear witness in the affirmative as described in our scriptures.

22 hours ago, ALarson said:

That's not what took place.....you completely misrepresented what I honestly shared with you regarding how I prayed about this policy.  I never went to the Lord stating I had decided not to follow the policy. 

It's difficult to want to have an honest discussion with you, when you turn around and twist what I shared into something that isn't true.

And all church members should pray about this (and other policies and teachings).  One does not need to hold specific keys to do so.

Perhaps my comments above will help show where I am coming from with regards to how we are encouraged to ask the Lord about the truth of a matter in prayer. I assumed the confirmation you describe receiving was based on having taken a decision to the Lord.

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by CV75

[CV75]

22 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

Whether He revealed the policy out of nowhere, or confirmed their proposal through the keys of revelation and power of the Holy Ghost, I see that the step-wise approach began with one of those events, but in either case the Lord took the lead in delivering the message to them. I think either is reasonable, and from the way the Church leaders have described it, I would say it (and subsequent administration of the policy and changes) came in response to their proposal and supplications, and perhaps as time went on, possibly/probably a proactive than a responsive direction from the Lord. Sometimes the Lord inspires us on what to propose and to pray for as well, and that could well be the case here and seems more likely than His not being involved in policy-making and leaving it up to the Church leaders. They have testified of how it works and how He is in the details.

I think the key, as I described above, is that spiritual confirmation requires a decision that aligns with the prophetic claim and then we can act on one of the three (at least) responses the scriptures describe. A fourth is being compelled to be humble until we get it right, and a fifth is a voice of terror (which I think is exceptional) both of which can be avoided through patience and faith.

21 hours 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."

Please see my reply to JulieM.

Edited September 28, 2019 by CV75

[Teancum]

On 9/26/2019 at 2:14 PM, nuclearfuels said:

It is amazing to me - how inspirational this sermon was.

Like Paul and Alma the Younger, President Nelson used logic to reason with the younger generation.

It is also amazing to me how many discussion boards and comment sections I have been banned from for stating something quite similar to: The Church leaders didn't invent biology, marriage, procreation, etc. - same as math, gravity, inertia - and in general, one can not redefine things one did not create.

 

 

Oh boy you and I must have a different understanding about logic and what meets logic's standard. This was one of the most illogical gas lighting back pedaling talk I have ever heard from and LDS leader. And the LDS leaders are certainly defining things. Biology tells us that sexuality is on a spectrum and homosexuals are biologically the way they are same as heterosexuals. Yet LDS leaders want to define what nature created as sin.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Teancum

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Oh boy you and I must have a different understanding about logic and what meets logic's standard. This was one of the most illogical gas lighting back pedaling talk I have ever heard from and LDS leader. And the LDS leaders are certainly defining things. Biology tells us that sexuality is on a spectrum and homosexuals are biologically the way they are same as heterosexuals. Yet LDS leaders want to define what nature created as sin.

That is not what biology tells us.  That is a political/social position. Biology cannot define or identify a gendered sexual preference. 

Separately, sin is a moral/ethical position and not refutable by science.  I mean "biology" tells us it is natural to eat our offspring. But not many people seem to be willing to listen to biology there. 

[mfbukowski]

On 9/27/2019 at 8:14 AM, rockpond said:

Your statements here have nothing to do with my post to which you were responding.  You might try reading it again, in context.

And having conversed with me on this topic you already know that I have a firm belief in the fallibility of prophets.

 

In my experience yes you are critical of prophets and point out errors they have made and discuss them endlessly, so I do not expect you to think they are infallible- I am just wondering why you bring it up constantly then and have done so on this thread if this fact is not important to you.  You bring it up again and again and so I impute a critical motivation to that behavior.  My comment was essentially "so what- get over it"

As you say we have discussed this many times before- I am just wondering why you constantly bring it up- otherwise it would not be clear that we have discussed it many times.

I have read it in context and I fail to find that I have made an error- maybe you could point out where I erred and I will be happy to apologize and correct my comments.

Edited September 28, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, kllindley said:

That is not what biology tells us.  That is a political/social position. Biology cannot define or identify a gendered sexual preference. 

Separately, sin is a moral/ethical position and not refutable by science.  I mean "biology" tells us it is natural to eat our offspring. But not many people seem to be willing to listen to biology there. 

[mfbukowski]

On 9/25/2019 at 9:33 AM, Teancum said:

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.

If your testimony was ever based on the infallibility of prophets, aren't you glad you have finally grown up some?

Obviously you are willing to follow your own gut- meaning "get your own testimony" and agree or disagree with the prophets.  In my book that's a good thing and quite a strong LDS principle to "prove everything" through the spirit.

A wise man said "I was never disillusioned because I was never illusioned in the first place" and I had that attitude before I ever even heard of the church.

Now let me make a suggestion.  There are volumes of truths the prophets have taught us on how to live happy lives.   With your new attitude I suggest you now regard the prophets as one might view a philosopher- read them for what you can learn of their wisdom without imputing some kind of magic infallibility to them.

Forget the primary song for now, and look to them for wisdom in how to live a happy life, and check with the spirit on everything you hear to see if your own spirit agrees

If you are like me, you will see volume after volume of brilliant wisdom compared to a gaff here and there.  Welcome to adulthood.  Take what wisdom is there and build your own world from matter unorganized by reading the best books and fearing nothing in regard to religion.

Some things you will agree with and some you will not agree with.  Go with the good and forget the bad.

The problem many get into is they do not understand human fallibility and then obsess about the mistakes instead of seeing the brilliance that is there for the taking if you are not blinded by fallibility.

 

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, kllindley said:

That is not what biology tells us.  That is a political/social position. Biology cannot define or identify a gendered sexual preference. 

I found this blog useful in collecting current data and historical examples of social constructs applied to same sex behaviour:

https://othersociologist.com/sociology-of-sexuality/

Quote

As I noted above, in Australia today, where heterosexuality is the norm, more heterosexual [self identified] women report acting on same-sex desire relative to men, whereas global records of women’s same-sex practices are largely missing. Perhaps it is only at this period of time, following sex-wave feminism, that social scientists are able to capture these patterns. Yet historically and cross-culturally, it has been men who have enjoyed more latitude to engage in same-sex practices, up until recent centuries. This shows how much culture shapes sexuality. These patterns go against conventions of sex and biology that many people in Western cultures draw on when thinking about sexuality.

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by Calm

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

Whether He revealed the policy out of nowhere, or confirmed their proposal through the keys of revelation and power of the Holy Ghost, I see that the step-wise approach began with one of those events, but in either case the Lord took the lead in delivering the message to them. I think either is reasonable, and from the way the Church leaders have described it, I would say it (and subsequent administration of the policy and changes) came in response to their proposal and supplications, and perhaps as time went on, possibly/probably a proactive than a responsive direction from the Lord. Sometimes the Lord inspires us on what to propose and to pray for as well, and that could well be the case here and seems more likely than His not being involved in policy-making and leaving it up to the Church leaders. They have testified of how it works and how He is in the details.

I think the key, as I described above, is that spiritual confirmation requires a decision that aligns with the prophetic claim and then we can act on one of the three (at least) responses the scriptures describe. A fourth is being compelled to be humble until we get it right, and a fifth is a voice of terror (which I think is exceptional) both of which can be avoided through patience and faith.

As I said before, if you want to convince me that what you call a step-wise approach to revelation is something other than trial and error, you'll need to start by explaining (albeit hypothetically) what the first step revealed to the Brethren on this policy may have been.

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, kllindley said:

A difference without a distinction to me.

If you don't see a distinction between a prophet being mistaken on something vs being incapable of receiving revelation at all, then that explains to me why you said you would leave the Church if the prophets turned out to be wrong on issues of homosexuality.  While I may disagree with you, at least you are consistent.

6 hours ago, kllindley said:

I did meant that if the Church is God's Church, but He lets the Leaders screw up as profoundly as you suggest (that the policy is not only uninspired, but directly in opposition to the Savior's teachings), That means to me that God must not be very effective in leading the Church.

It could also mean that we aren't always effective in listening, understanding, communicating, and/or following.  Lots of possibilities.

6 hours ago, kllindley said:

Fallible means capable of being mistaken or erroneous. You seem to be using it to mean actually mistaken. I prefer to use the actual definition.

No, I am using it as being capable of being mistaken or erroneous.  But in the case of this policy, I think he erred in referring to it as the revealed will of God.

6 hours ago, kllindley said:

I would, but can understand what you're saying. 

I assume, however, that you aren't closed off to the Spirit speaking to your soul and convincing you otherwise.  At least I hope.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

If you don't see a distinction between a prophet being mistaken on something vs being incapable of receiving revelation at all, then that explains to me why you said you would leave the Church if the prophets turned out to be wrong on issues of homosexuality.  While I may disagree with you, at least you are consistent.

Now it's your turn to be putting words in my mouth. I didn't say incapable of receiving revelation. I said incapable of knowing if they are receiving revelation. Again, this isn't a minor issue according to you: it was incompatible with the Savior's teachings. Seems like the sort of thing at least one of 15 prophets ought to be able get right. 

 

Quote

It could also mean that we aren't always effective in listening, understanding, communicating, and/or following.  Lots of possibilities.

And God can't communicate clearly enough to get through to one of those 15. Or He doesn't care to. Maybe a policy like that just wasn't all that important to him. 

Quote

No, I am using it as being capable of being mistaken or erroneous.  But in the case of this policy, I think he erred in referring to it as the revealed will of God.

And the push to use the full name of the Church. Wasn't it you who said you didn't think he knew the difference between revelation and waking up in the middle of the night with a thought? 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I assume, however, that you aren't closed off to the Spirit speaking to your soul and convincing you otherwise.  At least I hope.

I mean, sure. Maybe the Spirit will convince me that Pastafarianism is the truth. I'm not holding my breath, though. 

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I mean, sure. Maybe the Spirit will convince me that Pastafarianism is the truth. I'm not holding my breath, though. 

You mock but I cling to what I can to stay in the church.  I hope you never find yourself in this situation.  It's not an easy path nor is it one that I chose.