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

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't think "inference" infers, or even literally means, that

Quote

Definition according to wiki:  a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

If the inference is based on poor evidence and reasoning, why couldn't it be that?

[cinepro]

As far as I can tell, the Nov 2015 Policy and its later rescission is a good test to see whether someone (including President Nelson and other leaders) believe the Prophet and other leaders are infallible or not when it comes to things like Church policies.  

Think about it. If you wanted to test whether or not the leaders and members actually believed the leaders were "infallible", what kind of test would you need?  You would simply need a situation where they were totally (and officially) wrong about something big.  Not something like the brand of ketchup in the cafeteria in the COB.  But an actually policy with eternal ramifications (maybe, something having to do with an essential ordinance... like baptism?)  Then you would need to unequivocally show they were wrong by having the policy changed back shortly thereafter, with no rational explanation for why that specific period would need the policy to be in place.

And God (who obviously doesn't believe in infallible leaders Himself) gave us the perfect test. 

If someone suggests we are supposed to believe that the Nov 2015 policy's implementation and rescission were inspired by God, that is an argument for infallibility.  You have, in a short period of time, two diametrically opposed and contradictory policies being implemented.  It's basically President Nelson's "New Coke" moment. The policy was New Coke, and the leadership was totally blindsided that people actually cared and the blowback was way beyond what they could have imagined.  So they brought back Classic Coke (the old policy). 

The only difference is that Coke didn't try to pretend that God had told them to switch to New Coke, and Coke drinkers who had pledged loyalty to the idea that Coke President Don Keogh and other leaders at Coke headquarters were being led by God didn't have to try to figure out a way to explain why New Coke was a brilliant, inspired decision, but it was also the right thing to do to abandon it shortly thereafter.

Edited September 17, 2019 by cinepro

[SettingDogStar]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It's basically President Nelson's "New Coke" moment.

Made me laugh, and is a perfect analogy. All he would need to say is “we felt we were doing something in love, but we were mistaken and Lord corrected us.” An apology would be pretty good too. I bribe these men make mistakes (as everyone) and we have to say sorry, so should they.

Its alright, it was a mistake and we can recover from it. 

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

As far as I can tell, the Nov 2015 Policy and its later rescission is a good test to see whether someone (including President Nelson and other leaders) believe the Prophet and other leaders are infallible or not when it comes to things like Church policies.

If someone suggests we are supposed to believe that both its implementation and rescission were inspired by God, that is an argument for infallibility.  You have, in a short period of time, two diametrically opposed and contradictory policies being implemented.  It's basically President Nelson's "New Coke" moment. The policy was New Coke, and the leadership was totally blindsided that people actually cared and the blowback was way beyond what they could have imagined.  So they brought back Classic Coke (the old policy). 

The only difference is that Coke didn't try to pretend that God had told them to switch to New Coke, and Coke drinkers didn't have to try to figure out a way to explain why New Coke was a brilliant, inspired decision, but it was also the right thing to do to abandon it shortly thereafter.

Your argument is not logically sound.  Calling the change to the policy in April 2019 a rescission is a false premise.  It also requires that President Nelson is being dishonest in his devotional.  

I have no problem acknowledging fallibility.  AND I do believe that both the Nov. 2015 Policy and the change in April 2019 were based on actual revelation. 

[SettingDogStar]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Your argument is not logically sound.  Calling the change to the policy in April 2019 a rescission is a false premise.  It also requires that President Nelson is being dishonest in his devotional.  

I have no problem acknowledging fallibility.  AND I do believe that both the Nov. 2015 Policy and the change in April 2019 were based on actual revelation. 

So God wanted to make it difficult for children of Gay parents to get baptism for only 4 years? Why?  I’m not trying to attack you, i just don’t understand how both can be revelation (or either of them for that matter).

[Meadowchik]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But if I remember correctly, you don't just resist the idea of a spokesman for God, you probably don't believe that God exists.  Believing He doesn't exist does make it difficult to judge when a prophet is speaking with authority from God and when he isn't.  

If LDS belief makes it difficult for members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to judge prophet fallibility, then your belief, as a probable atheist, would seem to make it even more difficult still to judge such things.  

Not necessarily. Atheists can believe in morals, love for people and learning, and strict codes of ethics and integrity. So if any of those have anything to do with God if God exists, atheists might have pretty sound ideas about God. Maybe some are still looking, just haven't found God yet?

Edited September 17, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The only difference is that Coke didn't try to pretend that God had told them to switch to New Coke, and Coke drinkers didn't have to try to figure out a way to explain why New Coke was a brilliant, inspired decision, but it was also the right thing to do to abandon it shortly thereafter.

But maybe the inspiration was to create a new flavour and what went wrong was not that they did a new flavour, but that they substituted it for their main product.  Coke has had a lot of success with other flavours, after all.

I believe drawing attention to the need for parents to be fully supportive of children being baptized if they are not members in good standing themselves is very important and therefore I assume any inspiration that does that is correct, of course.  Covenants should not be entered into just to make someone else feel good, imo.  I actually wish they would expand that caution into other areas such as unmarried parents as it seems from what I hear that many bishops are okay with kids getting baptized just to please grandparents even while knowing the kid won't be coming to church unless visiting those grandparents.  As to who makes the judgment call on parental support, it doesn't really matter to me.  Having the First Presidency do it emphasizes the importance of the judgment.  Having the Bishop make the judgment puts the judgment into the hands of the leader most likely to know realistically how much support will be there.  Either works for me therefore, so I see no reason to assume error.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Calm

[JAHS]

2 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

So God wanted to make it difficult for children of Gay parents to get baptism for only 4 years? Why?  I’m not trying to attack you, i just don’t understand how both can be revelation (or either of them for that matter).

I think the 2015 policy could be looked at as a preliminary action to see just how many people would request permission from the First Presidency for their child to be baptized. Perhaps there were enough requests being made that that helped them to know that there would be a lot of them coming in and so it would be more prudent to have the parents just get permission from the Bishop instead. They had to go through the Bishop anyway before going to the First presidency.

[SettingDogStar]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

I think the 2015 policy could be looked at as a preliminary action to see just how many people would request permission from the First Presidency for their child to be baptized. Perhaps there were enough requests being made that that helped them to know that there would be a lot of them coming in and so it would be more prudent to have the parents just get permission from the Bishop instead. They had to go through the Bishop anyway before going to the First presidency.

So it was a test for statistics and not a revelation? I mean I kinda get that line of logical, but it doesn’t seem something God would do. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I think the 2015 policy could be looked at as a preliminary action to see just how many people would request permission from the First Presidency for their child to be baptized. Perhaps there were enough requests being made that that helped them to know that there would be a lot of them coming in and so it would be more prudent to have the parents just get permission from the Bishop instead. They had to go through the Bishop anyway before going to the First presidency.

That would be quite possibly the most cunningly designed survey ever. Respect.

Edited September 17, 2019 by The Nehor

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

So it was a test for statistics and not a revelation? I mean I kinda get that line of logical, but it doesn’t seem something God would do. 

It was still a revelation that the parents would need to get approval and have an understanding that they would have to support the covenant of baptism, rather than baptism being an automatic thing.

[cinepro]

13 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Your argument is not logically sound.  Calling the change to the policy in April 2019 a rescission is a false premise.

Can you be more specific?  In what way was the November 2015 policy not rescinded in 2019?

As for President Nelson being dishonest, I think you've missed the entire point.  The point being that he isn't dishonest, he is fallible.  

[kllindley]

Just now, SettingDogStar said:

So God wanted to make it difficult for children of Gay parents to get baptism for only 4 years? Why?  I’m not trying to attack you, i just don’t understand how both can be revelation (or either of them for that matter).

If we take President Nelson at his word, the Q15 were concerned about how to ensure peace in the family with children of parents in same sex relationships.  They discussed and prayed for guidance for months.  Ultimately, he reports that President Monson stated that the Lord had revealed to him that the policy that needed to be in place was that parents in same-sex relationships who wanted a child baptized would need First Presidency approval.  This approval would be granted if certain conditions were met.  Again, according to President Nelson, the other 14 Brethren received confirmation that this was the will of the Lord.  Over the next 3.5 years, the First Presidency did in fact grant approval in all such cases that met the criteria President Nelson outlined.  They continued to petition the Lord for guidance on the implementation of this policy.  At a certain point it was revealed that if a case met the same criteria that the First Presidency had been using, a Bishop would be authorized to grant the exception.  The criteria for children of parents in a same-sex relationship didn't change.  What changed was who was authorized to determine if the criteria have been met.  

Why would God want it this way?  I don't have any "inside" information and can only speculate.  I can see it as very possible that in the immediate aftermath of the June 2015 Supreme Court decision, there were some cases of children of parents in same-sex relationships being baptized and this leading to increased conflict in the home.  This could explain why the policy was implemented when it was.  I can also see that requiring First Presidency approval for the first 3.5 years may have served a purpose in communicating the importance of those criteria actually being met.  I guess I have faith that it is possible for Heavenly Father to communicate to the Q15 His will.  I believe it is possible that He not offer every reason why.  I also believe that it is possible for Him to inspire a course of action that prevents harm or problems that might otherwise occur.  Personally, I don't have the confidence in my own omniscience to assert that what President Nelson is saying about the process is false.   

[kllindley]

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Can you be more specific?  In what way was the November 2015 policy not rescinded in 2019?

See my post above.  I'm happy to clarify if that doesn't.  

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

As for President Nelson being dishonest, I think you've missed the entire point.  The point being that he isn't dishonest, he is fallible.  

But in the context of his explanation of the entire process, he isn't discussing fallibility or a mistake.  He claims that both changes to policy were the result of revelation.  Or is your claim to fallibility that he is mistaken in that claim?  

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I think the 2015 policy could be looked at as a preliminary action to see just how many people would request permission from the First Presidency for their child to be baptized. Perhaps there were enough requests being made that that helped them to know that there would be a lot of them coming in and so it would be more prudent to have the parents just get permission from the Bishop instead. They had to go through the Bishop anyway before going to the First presidency.

It may have helped them know what, if any instructions on judging the bishop should be given as well.

[kllindley]

Just now, Calm said:

It may have helped them know what, if any instructions on judging the bishop should be given as well.

That is a really good point.  Thanks!

 

[Calm]

Plus if actually inspired to go to the First Presidency rather than the local leader and not just inspired to draw attention to importance of parental support, it may have been for the benefit of the First Presidency and those who work with them  to get up close and personal with cases of gay parents wanting their children to be baptized so they could better understand their situations.  This may lead or have already led to changes in approach to LGBT issues and how they are discussed.

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Not necessarily. Atheists can believe in morals, love for people and learning, and strict codes of ethics and integrity. So if any of those have anything to do with God if God exists, atheists might have pretty sound ideas about God. Maybe some are still looking, just haven't found God yet?

I agree that atheists can have sound ideas about things that are a part of God, but since they deny the existence of God, those ideas do not help them have a personal relationship with Him.  But hopefully those who are looking will find Him.   

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Interesting speech.  I gave it a listen.  Of course I'm not on board with all that he said (what would we all expect?).  

I"m surprised he addressed this as he did, in a sense.  I mean if he was going to address it I don't know that there would be any other course to take, reasonably (well I'll get back to that).  Apparently God said, knowing full well it would hurt people, "don't let these kids coming unto me get baptized, lest their parents get offended and the kids and parents oppose each other."  The brethren apparently after much permutations and possible scenarios didn't realize it would hurt as bad as it did.  So after it was established as coming from God for a short time, they saw the hurt and plead with God to change it back.  He apparently suffered it to be so now.  

I remember the story of Joseph lamenting for his loss of soul when he kept pleading after God made his call, and the result of a loss of the 116 pages.  Joseph apparently learned a lesson not to doubt God, and learn to trust him.  I wonder if this whole event will produce the same for Nelson.  He suffers it to be so because he needs to teach his leader a lesson that he should have trusted him and not kept pleading.

But in the end, Meadowchik is right.  In truth it would be far more reasonable for him to come out and admit mistakes are made.  leaders don't always teach truth, as he said.  Sometimes they are wrong.  It happens.  He should admit that, I'd think.  

The better analogy, I believe, are the Savior’s words to the woman who sought his aid in healing her daughter, and His subsequent action based on her response  (Matthew 15; Mark 7).  I invite you to consider the parallels.

[ksfisher]

50 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The only difference is that Coke didn't try to pretend that God had told them to switch to New Coke

So you're saying that our leaders are pretending to be led by God?

If that's what you're saying that sounds like a pretty serious charge to be leveling by one who wasn't a participant or witness to the events.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

 

He explained how.  He also explained that it wasn't nearly as much rescinding the policy as changing who had the authority to offer exceptions to the policy. 

Haven't bishops ALWAYS had the right to refuse a baptism if they felt like it would be inappropriate?  I don't think a bishop automatically gives approval for baptizing a child when the parents aren't married for example.  Why weren't unmarried parents included in the first "revelation"?  And didn't the "revelation" take away that right from the bishop by requiring First Presidency approval?  That is a huge change and a departure for how baptisms have been handled for a very long time.

And what about the whole all gay couples are apostates?  Are they still apostates or did that change?

Edited September 17, 2019 by california boy

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Not necessarily. Atheists can believe in morals, love for people and learning, and strict codes of ethics and integrity. So if any of those have anything to do with God if God exists, atheists might have pretty sound ideas about God. Maybe some are still looking, just haven't found God yet?

God is not morality and morality is not God.

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Haven't bishops ALWAYS had the right to refuse a baptism if they felt like it would be inappropriate?  And didn't the "revelation" take away that right from the bishop by requiring First Presidency approval?

And what about the whole all gay couples are apostates?  Are they still apostates or did that change?

Sigh.  I sincerely hope you find what you're looking for. 

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Haven't bishops ALWAYS had the right to refuse a baptism if they felt like it would be inappropriate?  And didn't the "revelation" take away that right from the bishop by requiring First Presidency approval?

And what about the whole all gay couples are apostates?  Are they still apostates or did that change?

No change about that. He did say the law of chastity still applies to both heterosexual immorality  as well as homosexual immorality.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

What was rescinded though?  In the Nov. policy, a child with LGBTQ parents could only get baptized with permission from the First presidency, and almost without exception, when such was sought, and the parents agreed to support the child and understood what the child would be taught, the child was given permission to be baptized.  

The change in the policy was that such permission was now to be granted by the bishop instead of the First Presidency.   What revelation was rescinded?  Was it revelation that the First President was the only group who could give permission for such a child to be baptized?  That was never my understanding of what the revelation was.

 

Seriously?  What was rescinded?  The entire policy.  As it stands now, everything is back to what church policy was before the November "revelation".  I would ask you.  What is different now with this latest announcement than what was in place before the November policy was announced?