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

[Jake Starkey]

I am not trying to convince anyone about my process, simply rejecting anyone's ability to negate it.

LDS Alphas in the sense I use it are in action far more than proving or competing for dominance.  They are both holding to the iron rod and being liahonas pointing to the iron rod.  They are not going to be honored, they may not succeed, but the alpha effort itself brings awareness and worthy in itself.

The point in this case is that (1) the proclamation was a disaster ecclesiastically and culturally, (2) that it has clearly shown that the 15 are not only philosophically but also obviously not fallible in this issue, and (3) that holding them to account is for the greater good.  (4) Yes, they led the Church astray and then are trying to bring it back to where it should be, but trying to pretend nothing unhappy or awkward (at the very least) happened.  (5) The millennials and many of the genxrs in the Church are awaking to these facts.

The first time an Institute staffer criticized a President of the Church left me aghast.  I should have listened and thought then.  But  . . . we all learn at our own paces.

 

 

 

Edited October 2, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

1- "confusion" come about when 'little ones' are blocked through no transgression of their own from baptism, confirmation, and progression on the gospel path with their peers.

2- if the guardians are willing to accept baptism for their children, then the 'disposition' is done

3- willingness of the child to join the LDS Church and permission from the parents disposes any 'areas for potential conflicts'

4- a child's willingness to be baptized and permission by the parent disposes of any worry about the Proclamation on the Family

5- to think that any perceptions as to 'lifestyle choices' by the parents are somehow confused reveals only the confusion of the LDS authorities

As one TBM mid-ranking church authority on Temple Square said five years that the Proclamation was the most prominent PR blunder by LDS authorities in probably a hundred years

 

CFR.  Who's that? 

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

Ponder what an 'alpha' should  and would be in your heart on this matter, Calm.

To me, at the very least, an 'alpha' protects 'the least of these,' the children from harm by any leaders of any institution.

But apparently puts them willingly into conflict by causing them to think that their parents cannot go to heaven? 

Who is protecting the children from their parents ??

[longview]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

8 hours ago, longview said:

Not answering for CV75 but I believe it is eminently reasonable for the leadership to try to:  1- minimize confusion for the little ones;  2- carefully consider the dispositions of the "guardians";  3- identify areas for potential conflicts; 4- make sure there are no misunderstandings of (or opposition to) the Proclamation on the Family; 5- clarify perceptions on "lifestyle choices" by all who are in the "family circle".  Adjustments are ongoing (just as Joseph Smith had with new revelations).

No one is saying that those things are not important to prayerfully consider with the person interviewing a child for baptism and their parents.  Church leaders can and do all of those things without barring minor children from being baptized.  

 

7 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

1- "confusion" come about when 'little ones' are blocked through no transgression of their own from baptism, confirmation, and progression on the gospel path with their peers.

2- if the guardians are willing to accept baptism for their children, then the 'disposition' is done

3- willingness of the child to join the LDS Church and permission from the parents disposes any 'areas for potential conflicts'

4- a child's willingness to be baptized and permission by the parent disposes of any worry about the Proclamation on the Family

5- to think that any perceptions as to 'lifestyle choices' by the parents are somehow confused reveals only the confusion of the LDS authorities

As one TBM mid-ranking church authority on Temple Square said five years that the Proclamation was the most prominent PR blunder by LDS authorities in probably a hundred years

1- Do you approve of the several "leading progressive" guardians for "steering" their children (some aged 6 or younger) into gender "reassignments" thru surgical mutilations?  There are plenty of areas for confusion.  Some very tragic.

2- If their motivation is to imbue a radical cultural transformation of the flock, then their "disposition" may be questionable.

3- Willingness is not sufficient if they simply want to join their friends in church and various activities.  Bishops will have to carefully seek guidance of the Holy Ghost.  If they do not have basic understanding of Gospel principles, they are not prohibited from participation.

4- There is a definite incompatibility of homosexual and transgender lifestyles with the basic truths outlined in the Proclamation.  It could be a minefield for some.  If they are opposed to the Proclamation (wholly or in part), then why get involved?

5- LDS authorities are NOT confused.  It is you that is strangely warped in your thinking.  If you are opposed to the Proclamation, then you are also antagonistic to the Gospel, the church and the work of the restoration begun by Joseph Smith.  Shades of Korihor?

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Quote

Qualifications for baptism are pretty straightforward:  accepting all the basic doctrines in the Gospel and accepting God's purposes.  Excommunications are made with the same guidelines in mind:  "separation" is needed, NOT because the excommunicant is to be shunned or punished but to "protect" the church from being associated with apostasy and to help with the repentance process.

So tell me again what part that you outlined should prohibits a child to be automatically denied baptism when ALL of those requirements are meant,

No matter how I have seen this policy sliced and diced, for me, it never is compatible with the gospel message I believe Christ taught.  I don't think I am alone.

Who said "automatic" ?  You should know by now bishops are given the stewardship for prayerfully considering the "readiness" of each candidate (whether 8 years old or older).  It is clear from the Bible that homosexual acts are prohibited in both the OT and NT.  Jesus did not condemn the Samaritan woman for her several indiscretions but did invite her to repentance (the same for the another woman presented for stoning for adultery).  If the guardians understand the basic principles but are unwilling to abandon (repent of) the lifestyle, then will they be extra cautious about sending mixed messages to their children?

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

Their hesitation in altering the original handbook language has renewed my thinking that this policy may have been driven by a fear of tort litigation.  Specifically, parents or children who feel their relationship was harmed by a family member’s involvement in the church. 

“Consequent to the legalization of gay marriage...” President Nelson said.  They published a policy in 2015 that still stands today, as it was originally published, almost four years ago. 

And so then it was obviously a good move then right?  If you think it could cause tort litigation then obviously you see that it sets up family conflict - and then you mention that directly.

You can't have it both ways!!  

Of course in my opinion they did it for the good of the children, but your saying that admits right there that ONE "correct" and logical reason for the alteration was the familial conflict caused.

It seems no one on your side is thinking this through.  NO ONE is addressing the problems for the child that the parents are actually REQUESTING.

What parent requests that their child be subject to such a conflict, being taught that they cannot be with their parents forever while everyone else can??

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

No one is his or her right mind would want to ban them from attending meetings.

So the conflict is a good thing then I guess?

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Wouidn't the approach be to study, ponder, and pray about the policy?  That is pretty much the program in finding answers from God.  Not sure what else you are looking for.  Maybe recalling the words of the Savior on harming children?  

While it is the PARENTS who are requesting they be harmed? 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

That’s the only way I can’t think of to support the argument that we don’t want to confuse children or damage their parental relationship. 

This is why many refer to it as the policy of exclusion. 

There you go- the second time we have agreed on this point.  Trust me, they will not address it- they will blame the church for their own decisions in wanting their children to be baptized and/or attend meetings.

It has nothing to do with the children- it is all politics for them and that is precisely why they keep referring to "bad PR" - THAT is their main concern and their goal is to reap "good PR" for their side by citing the "evil church who hates children"

Edited October 2, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

My relationship with God, nor how I communicate with him, is not a matter to be judged by you. 

But it IS OK to judge the supporters AND the church and its ability to communicate with God, right?

That argument is a dead end.

[Jake Starkey]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So the conflict is a good thing then I guess?

Why would you think that?  Leave it to the Bishops to figure out the proper path for these families.

[Jake Starkey]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

But it IS OK to judge the supporters AND the church and its ability to communicate with God, right?

That argument is a dead end.

Your argument is a fallacy of false equivalency.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

Yup, some confused ones want to judge the alphas on how the alphas ask for confirmation, when it is they who are confused.

The proclamation was wrong from start to how badly it was handled at the end.

People will believe 'the one true church' thing, but they are aware now that the 15 are certainly (very) fallible.

This PR blunder is going to make the people of the church enforce accountability by the 15, far more than times past.

And of course you apparently are the one true Alpha right?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Me either.  Looks like curiosity about the process that has led a couple of posters to be very positive about what knowledge they believed they received.  I am now interested as well.

I know, number 3.  And who knows how many more?

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Your argument is a fallacy of false equivalency.

Oh please explain it to me - I am not very good at understanding logic.  Keep the words simple now ok?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said:

I am not trying to convince anyone about my process, simply rejecting anyone's ability to negate it.

LDS Alphas in the sense I use it are in action far more than proving or competing for dominance.  They are both holding to the iron rod and being liahonas pointing to the iron rod.  They are not going to be honored, they may not succeed, but the alpha effort itself brings awareness and worthy in itself.

The point in this case is that (1) the proclamation was a disaster ecclesiastically and culturally, (2) that it has clearly shown that the 15 are not only philosophically but also obviously not fallible in this issue, and (3) that holding them to account is for the greater good.  (4) Yes, they led the Church astray and then are trying to bring it back to where it should be, but trying to pretend nothing unhappy or awkward (at the very least) happened.  (5) The millennials and many of the genxrs in the Church are awaking to these facts.

The first time an Institute staffer criticized a President of the Church left me aghast.  I should have listened and thought then.  But  . . . we all learn at our own paces.

 

 

 

You need, imo, to get another name for it as "alpha" reads to me in nonacademic conversation, especially when claimed for oneself as arrogant, dominating jerk or wannabe loser.

I don't believe I have ever seen a woman use it in a non derogatory way in causal discussions, though no doubt some do.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Why would you think that?  Leave it to the Bishops to figure out the proper path for these families.

Well of course that is now their role but you have avoided the question.  Of course it will be left to the bishops, so what?

The question of who administrates or makes the decision is not what is being questioned here- it is HOW the bishop can decide to have a child taught that his parents are living a sinful life style.   The question is the justification for an affirmative answer that the child should be baptized by the bishop, not who makes the decision- that is obvious and settled.

Edited October 2, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Your argument is a fallacy of false equivalency.

Where is the false equivalency??

Oh sorry I am not an alpha so I will never understand, right?

[Jake Starkey]

All of the questions have been answered above.

 

[rockpond]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But it IS OK to judge the supporters AND the church and its ability to communicate with God, right?

That argument is a dead end.

As we all read and respond here we are judging one another's statements.  That's what we do.  Nothing wrong with that.

As for judging the Brethren's ability to communicate with God... President Nelson (among many others) have taught me that I should do that.  I have and will continue.

[rockpond]

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And so then it was obviously a good move then right?

If the goal was/is only to protect the Church from litigation, than it was a good move.  But that has never been presented by one of the Brethen as THE reason for the policy.

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You can't have it both ways!!

Not even sure what this means.

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course in my opinion they did it for the good of the children, but your saying that admits right there that ONE "correct" and logical reason for the alteration was the familial conflict caused.

I believe that denying ordinances and telling children that we don't want them to attend our services is not the right way.  In terms of protection from litigation, I think that the latest procedure change (custodial parents/guardians needing to sign a form whenever a membership record is created or a baptism is performed, and then that form being scanned and uploaded to a church database) is a better route.

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

He stated that he was outlining his process and asking whether it was the same or different for others.  Did he ever use the word criteria or is that purely inference on your part?

It is a problem for me because I started the thread and felt that it was reasonable to point out what I saw as misrepresentation of his statements. I welcomed being corrected when I was wrong about the positions you, and others, took. I guess I erroneously believed that you would also be interested in being accurate. 

I've been accurate in my statements and don't believe that I have misrepresented him.

If the word "judge" is a trigger for you than you can replace it with evaluate.  He sought to evaluate the way I communicate with my Heavenly Father using the principles he outlined.  He asked to know how we applied those principles.

I don't think there is anything terrible about his question.  But it was overly personal for me and so I declined.

 

[Calm]

Quote

f the word "judge" is a trigger for you than you can replace it with evaluate.  He sought to evaluate the way I communicate with my Heavenly Father using the principles he outlined.  He asked to know how we applied those principles.h

Or you could replace it with "understand".

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

I am not trying to convince anyone about my process, simply rejecting anyone's ability to negate it.

LDS Alphas in the sense I use it are in action far more than proving or competing for dominance.  They are both holding to the iron rod and being liahonas pointing to the iron rod.  They are not going to be honored, they may not succeed, but the alpha effort itself brings awareness and worthy in itself.

The point in this case is that (1) the proclamation was a disaster ecclesiastically and culturally, (2) that it has clearly shown that the 15 are not only philosophically but also obviously not fallible in this issue, and (3) that holding them to account is for the greater good.  (4) Yes, they led the Church astray and then are trying to bring it back to where it should be, but trying to pretend nothing unhappy or awkward (at the very least) happened.  (5) The millennials and many of the genxrs in the Church are awaking to these facts.

The first time an Institute staffer criticized a President of the Church left me aghast.  I should have listened and thought then.  But  . . . we all learn at our own paces.

These are mere assertions which are unjustified.

Whether or not it was a PR disaster is not for you to judge or your mythic middle management TBM.

For those who are looking for an assertion of "what is right" from the church's position it is a triumph to stand up for what is right regardless of what the world thinks.

I will take your points one by one.

Quote

LDS Alphas in the sense I use it are in action far more than proving or competing for dominance.  They are both holding to the iron rod and being liahonas pointing to the iron rod.  They are not going to be honored, they may not succeed, but the alpha effort itself brings awareness and worthy in itself.

"Are in action?"  How is accepting a calling "proving or competing for dominance"?   Have you ever been a bishop taking on another 40 hour week mostly to be criticized by those you are trying to help while "competing for dominance"?   This is fantasy.

If the alpha effort- apparently meaning being both a liahona and an "iron rod"- is worthy in itself, how is it "competing for dominance"?  It sounds as if it is more about love of the savior than competing for dominance.

Unless you mean that they are NOT competing for dominance? 

Quote

 

(2) that it has clearly shown that the 15 are not only philosophically but also obviously not fallible in this issue, and (3) that holding them to account is for the greater good.  (4) Yes, they led the Church astray and then are trying to bring it back to where it should be, but trying to pretend nothing unhappy or awkward (at the very least) happened.  (5) The millennials and many of the genxrs in the Church are awaking to these facts.

 

"the 15 are not only philosophically but also obviously not fallible in this issue,"?? 

Perhaps you meant "fallible"?  And what is the alleged "philosophy" here that makes them "not fallible"?  And who is the judge of what is "obvious"?

"and (3) that holding them to account is for the greater good"- What could this possibly mean?   Who is going to "hold them to account"?

With what authority?  What is the "greater good"?

"(4) Yes, they led the Church astray and then are trying to bring it back to where it should be, but trying to pretend nothing unhappy or awkward (at the very least) happened"  - mere assertion of your opinion with nothing to back it up. If you make a claim like that be ready to justify it.

You have not shown any of these to be "facts" and yet you say:

"(5) The millennials and many of the genxrs in the Church are awaking to these facts."

Yes many in those groups disagree with the church, but the church does not style itself as a PR campaign to please people.

Yet again this has become a political issue- not as in partisan politics- but as a worldly issue of pleasing as many people as possible.  It seems you think that pleasing many people is what church is about.

That of course is not what the church is about.

[mfbukowski]

46 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

All of the questions have been answered above.

 

Oh my gosh.  Ridiculous.  NONE have been answered and I am not the only one who sees that.  Fine.  A drive- by troll.  Waste of time.

I will let the readers judge for themselves if this is even remotely true.

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As we all read and respond here we are judging one another's statements.  That's what we do.  Nothing wrong with that.

As for judging the Brethren's ability to communicate with God... President Nelson (among many others) have taught me that I should do that.  I have and will continue.

Good.  Me too.  But guess what- we disagree on the results  So where does that leave us?

If you assert your opinion is correct and mine is not then I can assert the same.  As I said- that is a dead end argument.