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

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

I have a hard time believing in a God who cares whether or not men have foreskins.

And I have a hard time believing that by merely signing my name to a piece of paper, I can obligate myself to repay a loan worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.  And yet...

I also have a hard time believing that by merely saying the word "Yes" I became married.  And yet...

I also have a hard time believing that Donald Trump became the most powerful man in the world simply by reciting an oath.  And yet...

And so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And don’t forget the law of circumcision. It was also once declared to be mandatory and everlasting as well. 

Yep.  And I know people who still follow it for that reason - because the Mosaic law was fulfilled but the Abrahamic covenant continues.

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

D&C 132 is still there.  We still believe in this "doctrine."

The question was: Can you identify any "doctrine" that has been "rename{d}" and "toss{ed}" as you describe?

Changes to the temple ceremony and garment design do not seem to be at all equivalent to tossing doctrines.

This one is a mixed bag, but I'll grant this one.  

That said, the ban appears to lack a revelatory provenance, later characterizations of it as such notwithstanding.

Again, how is this an example of doctrine-tossing?

Again, this one is a mixed bag, but I'll grant this one.  

Still there.  Still doctrine.  

Kinda.

Which ones?

Not really.

I don't think it's that hard.

As an attorney, there are plenty of ambiguities in common law, statutory law, constitutional law, and so on.  But those ambiguities are on the fringes.  And those ambiguities do not negate the many, many well-settled principles of common law / statutory law / constitutional law.  

For example, there is currently a dispute in the courts as to whether decorating a bespoke wedding cake is "speech."  That's an interesting question, but not one that "makes it hard" to acknowledge that the Constitution still exists, that the courts have addressed such issues in well-known cases, and so on.

All-or-nothing approaches to the law are seldom effective.  And it seems unnecessary to reject the entire body of law because it has ambiguities in some applications.

Similarly, I think the Restored Gospel requires faith.  And effort to study and understand.  And humility.  And forgiveness.  And patience and "longsuffering."

Thanks,

-Smac

Re: the priesthood ban lacking “revelatory provenance,” does everything we embrace today as being revelatory have such provenance? Sincere question. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Re: the priesthood ban lacking “revelatory provenance,” does everything we embrace today as being revelatory have such provenance? Sincere question. 

I think so.  But I'm open to discussing that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

D&C 132 is still there.  We still believe in this "doctrine."

The question was: Can you identify any "doctrine" that has been "rename{d}" and "toss{ed}" as you describe?

Changes to the temple ceremony and garment design do not seem to be at all equivalent to tossing doctrines.

This one is a mixed bag, but I'll grant this one.  

That said, the ban appears to lack a revelatory provenance, later characterizations of it as such notwithstanding.

Again, how is this an example of doctrine-tossing?

Again, this one is a mixed bag, but I'll grant this one.  

Still there.  Still doctrine.  

Kinda.

Which ones?

Not really.

I don't think it's that hard.

As an attorney, there are plenty of ambiguities in common law, statutory law, constitutional law, and so on.  But those ambiguities are on the fringes.  And those ambiguities do not negate the many, many well-settled principles of common law / statutory law / constitutional law.  

For example, there is currently a dispute in the courts as to whether decorating a bespoke wedding cake is "speech."  That's an interesting question, but not one that "makes it hard" to acknowledge that the Constitution still exists, that the courts have addressed such issues in well-known cases, and so on.

All-or-nothing approaches to the law are seldom effective.  And it seems unnecessary to reject the entire body of law because it has ambiguities in some applications.

Similarly, I think the Restored Gospel requires faith.  And effort to study and understand.  And humility.  And forgiveness.  And patience and "longsuffering."

Thanks,

-Smac

I'd parse each part of your response if I had time.

But your statement here proves my point:

Quote

Changes to the temple ceremony and garment design do not seem to be at all equivalent to tossing doctrines.

 

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

Exactly - Just because I don't like it, understand it, or think that God would not do things the way I would, or that always make sense to me does not mean it is not His will.  

Your comments make me think of Matthew Holland's story of taking a wrong road with his dad, Elder Holland. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2005/07/wrong-roads-and-revelation?lang=eng

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'd parse each part of your response if I had time.

But your statement here proves my point:

Quote

Changes to the temple ceremony and garment design do not seem to be at all equivalent to tossing doctrines.

 

I don't see how

Your position presupposes "garment design" as "doctrine."  Until and unless you establish that, you don't seem to have a point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Plural marriage, temple ceremonies, garment design, the priesthood ban, the offices of seventy or presiding patriarch, adam-god, united order...

All at some point had the prophet or first presidency declare them as doctrine revealed from heaven (revelation), and in some case declare them and mandatory and unchanging.

Now they are all reduced to application or false.  Makes it hard to accept anything today's prophet calls doctrine.  It will likely be changed.

We're watching this happen with the 2015 policy.

In January of 2016, President Nelson taught that the policy was a result of the "prophetic process", that in creating it they prayed, fasted, and sought inspiration.  He said "It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson."

I predict we will never again hear such talk from the prophet or apostles regarding the 2015 policy.  That type of language will be reserved for the April 2019 reversal and the policy itself (should it ever actually get published in the handbook).

Not that this disproves it was ever revelation in the first place.  Just that we'll avoid talking about it in such terms.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 No one has said, for instance, suicide is a natural result of bullying, but for some reason they feel the need to argue against that.

Are you really claiming that no parent or group has ever claimed bullying caused a child or youth’s suicide?  Look up the term “bullycide”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicides_that_have_been_attributed_to_bullying

I am not spending more time on your misrepresentation of the pamphlet. People can read it for themselves and judge whether they ever contradict themselves. 

Edited September 18, 2019 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't see how

Your position presupposes "garment design" as "doctrine."  Until and unless you establish that, you don't seem to have a point.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well the prophet Joseph F. Smith taught:

"The Lord has given unto us garments of the holy priesthood, and you know what that means. And yet there are those of us who mutilate them, in order that we may follow the foolish, vain and (permit me to say) indecent practices of the world. In order that such persons may imitate the fashions, they will not hesitate to mutilate that which should be held by them the most sacred of all things in the world, next to their own virtue, next to their own purity of life. They should hold these things that God has given unto them sacred, unchanged and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gave them."  Aug 97 Ensign 

and

Messages of the First Presidency 5:110; “The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from Heaven and that the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any unauthorized change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them.” – President Joseph F. Smith; 28 June 1906."

Heber J. Grant disagreed so he changed them from doctrine to policy.

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think so.  But I'm open to discussing that.

Thanks,

-Smac

OK. 

I think we first must agree on a definition in this context of “revelatory provenance.” I take it to mean a documented origin. Is that your intended definition?

[Tacenda]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you really claiming that no parent or group has ever claimed bullying caused a child’s youth suicide?  Look up the term “bullycide”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicides_that_have_been_attributed_to_bullying

I am not spending more time on your misrepresentation of the pamphlet. People can read it for themselves and judge whether they ever contradict themselves. 

Just wanted to share a very well researched article: https://rationalfaiths.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/LGBTQCrisis_web.pdf

There's a very strong underpinning going on with the reversal, or the semi reversal of the policy. I believe it's to prevent the LGBTQ crowd from feeling ostracism, which in this article is a huge factor in them feeling suicidal. I believe the leaders of the church realize this has happened and are working on it. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Yep.  And I know people who still follow it for that reason - because the Mosaic law was fulfilled but the Abrahamic covenant continues.

Are these people professed Latter-day Saints? If so, what do they do with the explicit words of Christ in 3 Nephi. 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

As to heartache, confusion, and weeping that is par for living in this world. While I accept the policy caused some pain for some I find it hard to see it as the catastrophe of tears some have portrayed it as.

I think much of the suffering was caused by the media blowup with a limited number appearing to intentionally fan the flames and promote fear...and those who let themselves be overwhelmed by it share responsibility imo for their own suffering...and those who were completely dismissive of people’s sincere fears and refused to offer comfort contributed as well. We need to learn wisdom and self control, this was a definite opportunity to practice those, imo.  It could have been quite different I expect if the media and others had approached drawing conclusions more cautiously and still some others didn’t over react defensively.

That is in part imo on church leadership as they could have been clearer up front about what the policy would specifically involve (children being raised by gay parents) as well as pushed the fact that exceptions would be made for parents who will sincerely support their children being taught the gospel (approval having been granted in almost all such cases was mentioned by Pres Nelson).

It was obviously a learning experience for church leadership as they have been more careful with changes since then. Perhaps those who dramatically reacted when in the end it didn’t affect them in the feared way will have learned not to panic so quickly in the future, but take the wiser wait and see approach.  And hopefully those who defended too aggressively have turned to more effective ways to defend and help.

And for those who intentionally pushed the fear, their behaviour also stands as a witness and hopefully many have learned to listen to them with greater prudence. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think much of the suffering was caused by the media blowup with a limited number appearing to intentionally fan the flames and promote fear...and those who let themselves be overwhelmed by it share responsibility imo for their own suffering...and those who were completely dismissive of people’s sincere fears and refused to offer comfort contributed as well. We need to learn wisdom and self control, this was a definite opportunity to practice those, imo.  It could have been quite different I expect if the media and others had approached drawing conclusions more cautiously and still some others didn’t over react defensively.

That is in part imo on church leadership as they could have been clearer up front about what the policy would specifically involve (children being raised by gay parents) as well as pushed the fact that exceptions would be made for parents who will sincerely support their children being taught the gospel (approval having been granted in almost all such cases was mentioned by Pres Nelson).

It was obviously a learning experience for church leadership as they have been more careful with changes since then. Perhaps those who dramatically reacted when in the end it didn’t affect them in the feared way will have learned not to panic so quickly in the future, but take the wiser wait and see approach.  And hopefully those who defended too aggressively have turned to more effective ways to defend and help.

And for those who intentionally pushed the fear, their behaviour also stands as a witness and hopefully many have learned to listen to them with greater prudence. 

On the other hand, the suffering and the willingness of many to be public about how much this policy hurt seems to have played a significant role in promoting the prophet and apostles to pray for a change.  

If everyone had stayed silent in their pain, we might still be stuck with the old policy. 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

On the other hand, the suffering and the willingness of many to be public about how much this policy hurt seems to have played a significant role in promoting the prophet and apostles to pray for a change.  

If everyone had stayed silent in their pain, we might still be stuck with the old policy. 

I did not suggest being silent. I don’t usually go for all or nothing approaches. I don’t have a problem either with taking concerns public if done respectful and measured fashion. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I did not suggest being silent. I don’t usually go for all or nothing approaches. I don’t have a problem either with taking concerns public if done respectful and measured fashion. 

That’s true, you did not suggest silence.  But I’m not sure a more measured or moderate response would have resulted in the same response from our leaders. 

[truth a la carte]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

“Act in Doctrine” by David A. Bednar. On pages xiv-xv in the Preface he defines what doctrines and principles are and then notes a third essential element: Applications. I’ve boiled down his descriptions into the following simplified versions:

• Doctrines: eternal truths revealed by God.
• Principles: doctrinally based guidelines for the exercise of agency.
• Applications: actions we take in response to doctrines and principles.

Elder Bednar points out that “Our tendency as members of the Church is to focus on applications. But as we learn to ask ourselves, ‘What doctrines and principles, if understood, would help with this challenge?’ we come to realize that the answers always are in the doctrines and principles of the gospel” (pg. xv)

Doctrines answer the question of “why” and Elder Bednar suggests that the doctrine of the Atonement explains why Jesus is our advocate with the Father. He writes that principles answer the question of “what”; some examples are repentance, baptism, service, charity, etc. Applications answer the question of “how”, and provide the specifics of how something needs to be done. While the Church does teach applications, like in the case of ordinances and administrative duties, etc., it is necessary that many applications are individually personalized to us by the Spirit.

Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article:

Smac, I have appreciated this article since I first saw your post on it (a few weeks ago for me, since I’m new). Thank you for sharing it.

[truth a la carte]

I appreciate the discussion here, and the respect everyone shows one another – particularly on LBGTQ matters. These topics trouble me greatly, as my personal views on these issues differ from the views of my church.

[Jake Starkey]

In 2015, when the first declaration was released, I had an immediate infilling of the Spirit that it was wrong and wrong.

I still believe with all of my heart and soul that it is wrong.

And, yes, truth a la carte, I too appreciate and am grateful for the general composure of this dialogue.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, truth a la carte said:

I appreciate the discussion here, and the respect everyone shows one another – particularly on LBGTQ matters. These topics trouble me greatly, as my personal views on these issues differ from the views of my church.

 

9 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

In 2015, when the first declaration was released, I had an immediate infilling of the Spirit that it was wrong and wrong.

I still believe with all of my heart and soul that it is wrong.

And, yes, truth a la carte, I too appreciate and am grateful for the general composure of this dialogue.

Nice to see new posters on here, we need your input!

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are these people professed Latter-day Saints? If so, what do they do with the explicit words of Christ in 3 Nephi. 

They are yes.  I have no idea how they get past Mormon 8:8.  I do know they focus on the command to do the works of Abraham and the eternal Abrahamic covenant and blessings.  They also lean towards Old Testament and Hebrew language in their interests.

[sunstoned]

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not sure you know what the phrase “direct violation” means. As far as I am aware the Savior did not in mortality or through any revelation since mandate specifically that the children of those who enter into a same gender marital relationship should receive baptism and that is pretty much what is required for making this a direct violation.

 

Quote

 

Matthew 19:14 King James Version (KJV)

 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

 

As I mentioned before, it is a direct violation.  Preventing little children to come unto Christ.  That is what the POX did.  

[Maestrophil]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Your comments make me think of Matthew Holland's story of taking a wrong road with his dad, Elder Holland. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2005/07/wrong-roads-and-revelation?lang=eng

I agree.  Perhaps the policy is very much this?...

[Maestrophil]

12 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

 

As I mentioned before, it is a direct violation.  Preventing little children to come unto Christ.  That is what the POX did.  

I feel you are reading a lot into the Saviors admonition.  Isn't part of coming to Christ getting temple ordinances?  Should we allow little children to do be endowed, should we allow baptism before 8 if a child or their parents desire it?  Or should we work within the bounds the Lord sets through modern prophets to define what timetable we use to come unto Him?  The church's policy, no matter how unpopular does not forbid children from learning of Him, worshiping Him each Sunday, and petitioning for, and receiving baptism in the proper time and conditions.  There are boundaries for us all in coming to Christ in the institutional church, if you define it by receiving ordinances.  It's not a come-one and all come as-you -like-it affair for any of us.