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

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Understood.  But I thought your paraphrase should be accurate as to what I wrote.

Since I was in the midst of studying, pondering, and praying about such, I don't consider any of it to be unsolicited.

I don't recall if I had "key questions".  What was and has been on my mind is God's will for his gay children.

I think you might have answered while I was proofreading and editing my post: So far, it seems that an "acquired understanding" is the basis for your testimony and receiving the promptings and impressions you described about the policy (not that it's a bad thing, but this is why I'm asking the other questions as well). The policy is a subset of a larger perspective that informs or answers all the individual issues that might arise.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think you might have answered while I was proofreading and editing my post: So far, it seems that an "acquired understanding" is the basis for your testimony and receiving the promptings and impressions you described about the policy (not that it's a bad thing, but this is why I'm asking the other questions as well).

No.  The basis for my testimony is the Spirit and personal revelation.  I'm not really fond of you describing my experiences as "acquired understanding" because I don't really understand what you mean by that and from my perspective - it isn't a good fit as a descriptor.

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The policy is a subset of a larger perspective that informs or answers all the individual issues that might arise.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[stemelbow]

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I am about done here too.

I did not realize the depth of the difference in moral values we are facing here I guess.  It appears you raised your kids to question church, while I raised mine to let them think for themselves and how to evaluate "truth claims" and think philosophically. 

You've got that mixed up.  I didn't raise kids to question church per se.  I do like to challenge them to question though.  

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I taught myself how to think for my self and evolved from atheism and communism to where I am today.  In regard to the "progressive" to "conservative" continuum, I have moved across the entire spectrum from Chairman Mao, my teenage idol, to libertarianism today.

I have learned that moral standards have evolved for survival value, and so has the church's value system and I love the humanism and the notion of exalted humans creating worlds as we do now.

But my world is very different than your world, as mine has evolved.   I am not here to judge morals, just to say that we are quite far apart on these issues and how one should raise children.

Thanks for giving me my answer to the child-rearing question - it appears that folks on "your side" actually see the conflict kids will face as a positive thing.

I do not.   

So I cite irreconcilable differences as a reason for an intellectual divorce with supporters of your position, I guess.   We have nothing to talk about.  Thanks for teaching me that, it will save me a lot of effort in explaining my position further.

But I suppose I will finish this post perhaps to illustrate the same point further.

I taught my kids to question everything and how to find wisdom and recognize what they already had.  Now they do that for themselves as adults and I have some active and some not active.  Fine.  That is their decision.  I protected them in their youth and taught them to think for themselves and did not expose them early on to the horrors of the world. 

When they matured I opened all the doors and windows and philosophical issues.  

No, they may learn and hear different perspectives but lack the maturity to understand the flaws in logic they will encounter.  One first needs to teach them HOW to evaluate truth claims before they start going forward uneducated listening to all the garbage out there, turning them loose in the woods for every wolf that comes along.

NO that is not the case.  It is because they know at age 8 that it is wrong to hit their sister and steal toys from Walmart.

They are NOT old enough to make moral choices or be exposed to all the evils of the world.  THAT to me is child abuse as I have said before, but I cannot adjust other's views on these matters if they think that at age 8 kids are ready to be immersed in every worldly view.

If you want them immersed in the world at that age, it is a good reason why you should NOT want them immersed in the church. 

No in fact I think I clearly said, though I could be wrong, that they should also be barred from meetings if their parents want them to be raised knowledgeable about LGBT issues.

I see.  So you disagree with the Church and some kids should not be welcome at church at all?  I wonder how'd you enforce that.  let's say a child is brought to church by a grandparent (happens enough, I think).  How would you as a ward member or your bishop know the child's parents are LGBT? That's one example.  How about this.  Let's say a grandparent is speaking in church and invites his LGBT child and grandchildren to listen.  Whose there to stop them from attending meetings?  

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

THAT is the bottom line.  If you think an 8 year old can consider LGBT issues and be exposed to all this, go for it.

We're talking about 8 years old whose parents are LGBT and are brought to church.  If you think 8 year olds are blind to the gender of their parents, well, then no wonder you have taken the position you have.  It is one of ignorance.  

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I would not even consider such a thing.

Irreconcilable differences.

Wow that has to be the most confused set of statements I have seen in a single couple of sentences in years!!

So obviously these hypothetical kids are being exposed BY THEIR PARENTS to "stupid teachings" and the parents are REQUESTING the "stupid teachings" but it is not the parent's fault that the teachings are "stupid".  Brilliant.

Well it is odd you are putting the conflict on the parents.  I suppose I had to point out the obvious.  

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And so it is a good thing then, I guess in your assessment that grandchildren to take over training the children in morality because the parents live "in sin"

That sentence doesn't seem to make any sense.  Are you saying grandparents taking grandchildren to church is grandparents taking over raising the grandchildren?  Just curious.  That was just an example I had in mind since over the course of my church days I had seen many grandparents taking grandchildren to church, perhaps at the request of the parents.  

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Great.

So turn it all over to the grandparents to teach the kids morality because the parents see the moral teachings as "stupid" and that is all a good thing.  

This is just silly.  There is plenty of good to get out of church that doesn't relate to the proclamation.  I saw California boys post over on the why I like being a member thread and realized how foolish your position was, even more.  There are plenty of things for a growing child to learn through being raised in the Church.  That does not mean at all that all they learn or get out of church is useful or good.  But that's why their are parents to correct the foolish.

When I was a young boy I had just got a fresh lesson in school on evolution.  At church we had a stake visitor come and mock evolution in our sacrament meeting.  My dad later told me I had a disgusted and concerned look on my face as the speaker went on.  I remember thinking he didn't seem to know what he was talking about.  My dad explained to me that there are plenty of things in church that are subject to error.  You have to realize that people hold strange positions and the Church doesn't have all the answers.  It was a useful little experience for me.  

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Just brilliant.  Amazingly brilliant.

And now you contradict your central position.  

You just ADMITTED that kids would not understand the church's stupid position and don't see life "that way".

Yet above you said they should be exposed to all these thoughts and were mature enough at 8 to understand them.

No I didn't.  I pointed out that 8years old was identified as the appropriate age to baptized precisely because it is a time to start making personal decisions, apparently.  8 Year olds whose parents are LGBT might already feel the Church is mixed up on this issue, because he/she might be going home each Sunday and seeing a wonderful relationship between two loving grownups.  The church may say, we really want ot protect the child from feeling conflict.  And I say, not really, or at least that's not helpful.  The 8 year old can go to church whether baptized or not, andperhaps might very well see the foolish views of the Church on this issue for what they are.  

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Remember this?

VS

WHICH IS IT?

Conflict cannot exist unless there are two positions involved, and you put it on the church which is trying to protect the kids from conflict while you think it is a good idea to expose them to conflict.  It is impossible for "conflict" to be one-sided.

Yes indeed it is a sad argument.

But thanks for stating how sad it IS so clearly.

Welcome.  

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No.  The basis for my testimony is the Spirit and personal revelation.  I'm not really fond of you describing my experiences as "acquired understanding" because I don't really understand what you mean by that and from my perspective - it isn't a good fit as a descriptor.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I see "acquired understanding" as a gradual form of revelatory process, and is why people typically do not pray about the truthfulness of a policy or to determine whether it was of God or man. I am not making a judgement about the validity of it, but I think it holds a stronger bias than "considered opinion" and less of a bias than the Spirit speaking to them reconfirming their acquired understanding, or the even stronger bias resulting from a direct spiritual witness in answer to a specific prayer.

What i meant was, one's stance on the policy can be informed by his acquired understanding, and could be reconfirmed by a specific spiritual prompting without a specific prayer being said about it at all.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I see "acquired understanding" as a gradual form of revelatory process, and is why people typically do not pray about the truthfulness of a policy or to determine whether it was of God or man. I am not making a judgement about the validity of it, but I think it holds a stronger bias than "considered opinion" and less of a bias than the Spirit speaking to them reconfirming their acquired understanding, or the even stronger bias resulting from a direct spiritual witness in answer to a specific prayer.

What i meant was, one's stance on the policy can be informed by his acquired understanding, and could be reconfirmed by a specific spiritual prompting without a specific prayer being said about it at all.

What do you mean by stronger bias and less of a bias in this context?

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You've got that mixed up.  I didn't raise kids to question church per se.  I do like to challenge them to question though.  

I see.  So you disagree with the Church and some kids should not be welcome at church at all?  I wonder how'd you enforce that.  let's say a child is brought to church by a grandparent (happens enough, I think).  How would you as a ward member or your bishop know the child's parents are LGBT? That's one example.  How about this.  Let's say a grandparent is speaking in church and invites his LGBT child and grandchildren to listen.  Whose there to stop them from attending meetings?  

I of course never said that they should not be welcome at church, I did not say the the bishop should enforce such a silly idea or anything like that 

I meant "they should also be barred from meetings if their parents want them to be raised knowledgeable about LGBT issues" IF the discussion will include the differences between church teachings and those of the world regarding LGBT issues.

If Grandpa is going to teach that children of gay parents cannot be a "forever family" because their parents are living in sin, yes, as a parent, I would bar them from that meeting.

Thanks for showing how that could be misconstrued.  And no one is to "stop them" IF the family wants them to be exposed to that conflict because the family thinks such a conflict is good for them at that age.

THAT is the difference between my position and the position of those opposed to the policy, in my opinion. 

I am FOR the policy BECAUSE I think kids should be protected from that kind of conflict AT THAT AGE and apparently those opposed to the policy find no harm in that conflict.

I think that is the exact center of the crux of the problem.  Either the conflict is harmful or it's not- THAT is the issue here.  The church thought/thinks that it's harmful and I agree.

Perhaps the church changed the policy because they realized that the gay parents did not care if the kids were exposed to the conflict- and that appears to be the position of those who have given their positions on this thread.  WE have seen at least two or three express those opinions right here.  If the parents want it, who am I to disagree?  It's not my problem, it's the parents problem IF it IS a problem.

Quote

We're talking about 8 years old whose parents are LGBT and are brought to church.  If you think 8 year olds are blind to the gender of their parents, well, then no wonder you have taken the position you have.  It is one of ignorance.

LOL, no of course they are not blind to it.   I am sure they will know about people being gay as soon at least as they hit school, and get some opposition for having gay parents which in our world I think is a certainty!  Yes it is unfortunate but it is reality today.

What I am opposed to is deliberately having them taught that their parents are sinners.

But if the gay parents want that- that is their decision, not mine.   And it is not up to me or the church to stop that I suppose.  That is the only reason I can find quite frankly for me to change my position on the policy.  If the parents don't care- why should I?

It is a more libertarian position anyway.  It is my BELIEF that it would be harmful for the kids to go through that but it will certainly harden their position against the church and any conservative position IF that is the objective of the parents.  

Quote

Well it is odd you are putting the conflict on the parents.  I suppose I had to point out the obvious.  

HUH? Who else is there to put it on??   The church is trying to PREVENT the conflict the parents appear to be WANTING to cause!!

Quote

 

That sentence doesn't seem to make any sense.  Are you saying grandparents taking grandchildren to church is grandparents taking over raising the grandchildren?  Just curious.  That was just an example I had in mind since over the course of my church days I had seen many grandparents taking grandchildren to church, perhaps at the request of the parents.  

 

Fine.  Good for them. I cannot imagine teaching my kids beliefs that I personally oppose and allowing their grandparents to teach them things I am opposed to.

If that's what they want, that's what they want.   I do not get it at all.

Quote

This is just silly.  There is plenty of good to get out of church that doesn't relate to the proclamation.  I saw California boys post over on the why I like being a member thread and realized how foolish your position was, even more.  There are plenty of things for a growing child to learn through being raised in the Church.  That does not mean at all that all they learn or get out of church is useful or good.  But that's why their are parents to correct the foolish.

Yes well then we disagree.  The church is about doctrine not boy scouts.  One does not allow kids to be baptized into a church so they have nice friends who are uncontaminated by the world and ignore the doctrine.   That is a pretty ridiculous position IMO.

Quote

When I was a young boy I had just got a fresh lesson in school on evolution.  At church we had a stake visitor come and mock evolution in our sacrament meeting.  My dad later told me I had a disgusted and concerned look on my face as the speaker went on.  I remember thinking he didn't seem to know what he was talking about.  My dad explained to me that there are plenty of things in church that are subject to error.  You have to realize that people hold strange positions and the Church doesn't have all the answers.  It was a useful little experience for me.  

Yes your dad was right.   You do not seem to be able to differentiate core doctrine from someone shooting off their mouth.

The church takes NO position on evolution- but takes a VERY CERTAIN position on LGBT issues.  If you can't tell the difference, you can't tell the difference.

Quote

 

No I didn't.  I pointed out that 8years old was identified as the appropriate age to baptized precisely because it is a time to start making personal decisions, apparently.  8 Year olds whose parents are LGBT might already feel the Church is mixed up on this issue, because he/she might be going home each Sunday and seeing a wonderful relationship between two loving grownups.  The church may say, we really want ot protect the child from feeling conflict.  And I say, not really, or at least that's not helpful.  The 8 year old can go to church whether baptized or not, andperhaps might very well see the foolish views of the Church on this issue for what they are.  

 

That says it all right there.  You want them exposed to foolish ideas at the age of 8 regarding sexuality and I do not.

As I said a couple of posts ago THAT is the difference.

I have changed my mind.  If y'all don't care, why should I ?

I will still not participate in teaching your kids what will conflict with what they hear at home though, so if I am ever in a position to teach that conflict to someone else's kid, I will not teach it even if the parent wants me to.   

I stand by the church's position.  Let the bishop decide, poor guy.   Been there.  These are the ones you lose sleep over.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

So sometime after this process started some 15 years ago (when you first began to prayerfully study and ponder what prophets and apostles taught on homosexuality), and when the witness of God’s will concerning priesthood ordinances for his gay children first came to you, was it unsolicited; or did it come as an acquired understanding; or in answer to a specific conclusion or question that you formulated to bring to the Lord for an answer; or, did you do something else to obtain it?

Why the inquisition of Rockponds testimony of his personal prayers and answers?  See this is what happens in the LDS Church. The only time answers are valid and true is if they confirms the policy and direction of the Church and its leaders. So why bother?

[Jake Starkey]

When one questions something, the question back (the old one was 'when did you commit adultery') is 'when did you start watching porn.'

Ignore the inquisition.  They have no power over you.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said:

When one questions something, the question back (the old one was 'when did you commit adultery') is 'when did you start watching porn.'

Ignore the inquisition.  They have no power over you.

This is especially useful when you have no answers to give.

 Except of course your credibility goes to zero.

Edited October 3, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Jake Starkey]

You have no authority to assign credibility scores, and when you try, laughter erupts.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

You have no authority to assign credibility scores, and when you try, laughter erupts.

Oh no! I am crushed! Not laughter! How horrible!

Did the alphas give you that one?

It would be useful for you to learn how to use the quote function. Responding to the air just doesn't make it.

Edited October 3, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Jake Starkey]

[longview]

8 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

The question above is immaterial to the discussion.

I am very curious.  You and California Boy have avoided answering point #1 recopied here:

"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."

[Jake Starkey]

Because the question is immaterial to the OP.

If you believe I am wrong, longview, you can attempt to explain why it is relevant.  Be specific.

 

Edited October 3, 2019 by Jake Starkey