And they came to pass...the sacrament?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

Since this is not something that requires First Presidency approval, a lot of time should be taken off of their plate to attend to the other matters you brought up. 

"Unless contrary to legal requirements, these Church officers [stake president, mission president, bishop, branch president] may perform marriages for members of their units outside the boundaries of their units."

(Handbook 1, 3.5.3)

 

I realize that this is not the main thrust of your post, but I didn't want anyone going away with the impression that this was not allowed.

 

That has changed. I used to require FP approval. I know because I had to submit a letter to the FP and wait for a response.

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It's kind of ironic that in a church that believes in personal revelation, "divine direction" isn't expected, much less authorized, until the First Presidency becomes involved.

It reminds me of what a Quaker told me once--the difference between Mormons and Quakers is that Mormons go to a Prophet to hear the Word of God, while Quakers go directly to the source.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in both personal and prophetic revelation.  Believing in one does not cancel out belief in the other.  The key is stewardship.  I can receive revelation for myself, revelation in regards to leading my family, and revelation concerning the stewardship of my calling.  However, I cannot expect to have revelation on matters that effect the entire church or that for a matter pertaining to another persons stewardship.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That has changed. I used to require FP approval. I know because I had to submit a letter to the FP and wait for a response.

The necessity for the policy must have passed.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Just curious...do you believe that every request for exception that goes to the First Presidency is actually reviewed by the First Presidency as an individual matter? It is my understanding that many of the required FP exceptions go to the "office" of the First Presidency but are generally funneled through their Executive Secretaries who make decisions about what exceptions should or should not be permitted. The FP may then review the recommendations of the ES or simply accept them.

Do you have any personal information about how the actual process works? I don't find it realistic to expect the FP personally reviews every item that requires FP permission because there are sooooo many items. From sealing cancellations to rebaptisms, to allowing bishops to perform a marriage out of their ward boundaries to... There are a LOT of things that require FP approval and I simply don't see how they could spend the time to seek divine direction on each specific item.

I have no inside information on that. 

It seems daunting to me, with the volume of missionary assignments that are made, that the members of the Quorum of the Twelve would, among their group, be able to handle the task. Yet I don’t don’t doubt they do. 

In fact, I was on a private tour of the Church Administration Building  a year ago and personally saw one of the two small rooms, each equipped with two computer monitors, where an apostle sits with a member of the Missionary Department staff, individually examines  each missionary application and makes the mission assignment. 

I was told there are two such rooms, identically furnished, but we (my editor, a photographer and I) were only shown one. 

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, ksfisher said:

The necessity for the policy must have passed.

Or the realized there was no necessity and it was a time-suck.

I would expect to see MANY things that currently require FP approval to change in the future. Like I asked Scott, I wonder how much time/thought/prayer the FP can really put in to ever calling of a bishop/SP when there are over 30K bishops that change every 5 years. I expect many things to change because they likely aren't really receiving much FP attention now, as it is. It's just not possible for the top 3 to be involved in so many issues personally. That's what delegation is for, especially in a 16 million member church.

[ksfisher]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Or the realized there was no necessity and it was a time-suck.

 

I would think that there must have been a reason for it was the policy was put in place.  Perhaps it wasn't a good reason, but I would this there was something that prompted the need or perceived need. 

It seems as if many rules that run contrary to common sense were put in place because someone, somewhere, was not acting with common sense.  Hence the need for stupid rules.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

It's kind of ironic that in a church that believes in personal revelation, "divine direction" isn't expected, much less authorized, until the First Presidency becomes involved.

It reminds me of what a Quaker told me once--the difference between Mormons and Quakers is that Mormons go to a Prophet to hear the Word of God, while Quakers go directly to the source.

Latter-day Saints go to the source too — where it concerns personal matters or matters over which they have been given ecclesiastical responsibility. But where it involves the Church as an institution — such as making exceptions to established policies — it is a task for those who have been called to it. That’s the Lord’s way of keeping order in His Church. 

[jpv]

On 10/25/2018 at 7:15 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not sure even now that you grasp my “assessment.” 

For example, I never said that “there [are] some policies that would be detrimental and foolhardy to set aside or disagree with regardless of the reason.” 

What I did say is that whatever God conveys to His children, be it through prophets or in some other way, is right and ought to be heeded, regardless of whether one chooses to call it doctrine, policy, counsel or something else. 

You seem big on this policy thing.

So would you put the handbook policy on no cooking in the kitchen in the same category as:

the BoM, OD2, Family Proclamation, or even President Nelson's admonition on the name of the Church? 

 

Where in this scale? Are all Church policies in your mind equally Divine?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, jpv said:

You seem big on this policy thing.

So would you put the handbook policy on no cooking in the kitchen in the same category as:

the BoM, OD2, Family Proclamation, or even President Nelson's admonition on the name of the Church? 

 

Where in this scale? Are all Church policies in your mind equally Divine?

Where do you personally stand on the matter of Christ governing the Church through prophecy and revelation? Do you believe in it? If not, why not? If you do, where do you draw the line (since, apparently, you believe prophets receive revelation on some things but not others)?

[SouthernMo]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Where do you personally stand on the matter of Christ governing the Church through prophecy and revelation? Do you believe in it? If not, why not? If you do, where do you draw the line (since, apparently, you believe prophets receive revelation on some things but not others)?

Your dodging of @jpv‘s question is too comically painful to ignore!

Your awkwardly timed counter-question seems to be the go-to for fundamentalist Mormons: to put a binary choice in front of  someone to force them to either be obedient and good, or disobedient and apostate.  That characterization is not the reality of our existence!

We are constantly in situations of ‘grey areas’ and have to make tough choices on how we will align ourselves with truth.  The choice where we all began - mother Eve’s alpha choice - is the quintessential example of this. So important is that choice, that it has become a principle narrative of all Judeo-Muslim-Christian history!

Let’s stop with the false idea of binary choices. It’s not a healthy perspective.

And also - answer @jpv‘s question! 😊

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Your dodging of @jpv‘s question is too comically painful to ignore!

Your awkwardly timed counter-question seems to be the go-to for fundamentalist Mormons: to put a binary choice in front of  someone to force them to either be obedient and good, or disobedient and apostate.  That characterization is not the reality of our existence!

We are constantly in situations of ‘grey areas’ and have to make tough choices on how we will align ourselves with truth.  The choice where we all began - mother Eve’s alpha choice - is the quintessential example of this. So important is that choice, that it has become a principle narrative of all Judeo-Muslim-Christian history!

Let’s stop with the false idea of binary choices. It’s not a healthy perspective.

And also - answer @jpv‘s question! 😊

Welcome to my ignore list. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Welcome to my ignore list. 

Welcome, SouthernMO!   

[ksfisher]

10 hours ago, jpv said:

You seem big on this policy thing.

So would you put the handbook policy on no cooking in the kitchen in the same category as:

the BoM, OD2, Family Proclamation, or even President Nelson's admonition on the name of the Church? 

 

Where in this scale? Are all Church policies in your mind equally Divine?

There are policies in the handbook that are in place in order for the church to be in compliance with law.  The policy that we do not cook in the "serving area" is one such policy.  If it was a kitchen then we could cook in it, but would mean compliance to local health code laws. 

Policies that govern the priesthood as well as priesthood ordinances are based on the doctrine of the church and have been put in place by those who hold the necessary keys and authority to define church doctrine and policy.  These are the same priesthood keys that Christ gave to Peter and were restored to the earth by Peter, James, and John. 

Both kinds of policies are important to follow.  Christ asks us to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."  We follow local law and church policies based on that law so that may get along with those around us.

We follow policies based on doctrine in order to please God and be obedient to His commands.  We follow the prophet and others who have been given authority to govern the church.

All policies may not be of equal importance, but there are reasons to follow all of them.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

There are policies in the handbook that are in place in order for the church to be in compliance with law.  The policy that we do not cook in the "serving area" is one such policy.  If it was a kitchen then we could cook in it, but would mean compliance to local health code laws. 

Policies that govern the priesthood as well as priesthood ordinances are based on the doctrine of the church and have been put in place by those who hold the necessary keys and authority to define church doctrine and policy.  These are the same priesthood keys that Christ gave to Peter and were restored to the earth by Peter, James, and John. 

Both kinds of policies are important to follow.  Christ asks us to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."  We follow local law and church policies based on that law so that may get along with those around us.

We follow policies based on doctrine in order to please God and be obedient to His commands.  We follow the prophet and others who have been given authority to govern the church.

All policies may not be of equal importance, but there are reasons to follow all of them.

I like your policy example. There is a very good reason for that policy that was probably discerned through study and legal counsel. But would one suggest the policy was revelation from God simply because it is approved by the top church leadership?

Some things are done because they make sense and are needed. This goes for policies, callings, assignments etc. But when we over reach and call those policies "revelation" or "God's divine will" it kind of oversells the policy. I suspect there are many things that are treated as revelation that are simply good ideas/practices (or were at some point). IMO the requirement for a deacon to pass the sacrament could fit into that box.

[SouthernMo]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Welcome to my ignore list. 

Few things:

First - why ignore me?  Is my shared perspective hurtful or harmful to you?

Second - why reply to me to tell me you’re ignoring me?  Seems paradoxical to me...

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

There are policies in the handbook that are in place in order for the church to be in compliance with law.  The policy that we do not cook in the "serving area" is one such policy.  If it was a kitchen then we could cook in it, but would mean compliance to local health code laws. 

Policies that govern the priesthood as well as priesthood ordinances are based on the doctrine of the church and have been put in place by those who hold the necessary keys and authority to define church doctrine and policy.  These are the same priesthood keys that Christ gave to Peter and were restored to the earth by Peter, James, and John. 

Both kinds of policies are important to follow.  Christ asks us to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."  We follow local law and church policies based on that law so that may get along with those around us.

We follow policies based on doctrine in order to please God and be obedient to His commands.  We follow the prophet and others who have been given authority to govern the church.

All policies may not be of equal importance, but there are reasons to follow all of them.

Well stated. 

I would add, though, that divine inspiration may well be a factor even with policies that are set in place in order to conform to the law. 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I like your policy example. There is a very good reason for that policy that was probably discerned through study and legal counsel. But would one suggest the policy was revelation from God simply because it is approved by the top church leadership?

Some things are done because they make sense and are needed. This goes for policies, callings, assignments etc. But when we over reach and call those policies "revelation" or "God's divine will" it kind of oversells the policy. I suspect there are many things that are treated as revelation that are simply good ideas/practices (or were at some point). IMO the requirement for a deacon to pass the sacrament could fit into that box.

Why would you rule out divine inspiration for policies “that make good sense and are needed”? Isn’t that a false dichotomy? 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why would you rule out divine inspiration for policies “that make good sense and are needed”? Isn’t that a false dichotomy? 

I think that when one calls mundane things revelation it diminishes the value of revelation.

Did God really need to reveal to me that I should buy XX brand of toothpaste? No. It's silly.

Did God really need to provide revelation to leaders to follow the health code law or pay exorbitant expenses to ensure compliance? Nah.

Why should God take the time and make the effort to reveal things that can easily be decided or discerned by the average Joe while failing to provide revelation that deepens and adds to gospel knowledge about important religious issues. It seems God is much more concerned with bureaucracy and management these days than revealing eternal truths. I suppose the next argument will be that we get what we are prepared to receive. So if as a church we are only prepared to receive mundane, administrative revelations, what value is having a prophet beyond providing acceptable management of the church?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think that when one calls mundane things revelation it diminishes the value of revelation.

Did God really need to reveal to me that I should buy XX brand of toothpaste? No. It's silly.

Did God really need to provide revelation to leaders to follow the health code law or pay exorbitant expenses to ensure compliance? Nah.

Why should God take the time and make the effort to reveal things that can easily be decided or discerned by the average Joe while failing to provide revelation that deepens and adds to gospel knowledge about important religious issues. It seems God is much more concerned with bureaucracy and management these days than revealing eternal truths. I suppose the next argument will be that we get what we are prepared to receive. So if as a church we are only prepared to receive mundane, administrative revelations, what value is having a prophet beyond providing acceptable management of the church?

Some choices that appear at first glance to be sensible might have implications below the surface that are not readily apparent. One could make a tentative choice based on reasoning and then seek and receive a divine ratification for the choice just in case there are unseen implications lurking beneath the surface. But that seems to go against your grain. I must say that attitude puzzles me. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think that when one calls mundane things revelation it diminishes the value of revelation.

Did God really need to reveal to me that I should buy XX brand of toothpaste? No. It's silly.

Did God really need to provide revelation to leaders to follow the health code law or pay exorbitant expenses to ensure compliance? Nah.

 

Who are you to say which decisions that come before high Church leaders are too mundane to merit divine guidance? Policies that are going to govern and impact the behavior of millions of Church members are hardly mundane, say I. 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Some choices that appear at first glance to be sensible might have implications below the surface that are not readily apparent. One could make a tentative choice based on reasoning and then seek and receive a divine ratification for the choice just in case there are unseen implications lurking beneath the surface. But that seems to go against your grain. I must say that attitude puzzles me. 

This reminds me of Elder Holland's Wrong Road message. In that story he share about how he and his son wondered which road they should take. They thought about it and then prayed to know which direction they should go. He received revelation and so he took the road. It was the wrong road. Ultimately, what he considered to be revelation from God, was actually wrong information. In truth, I suspect there wasn't any revelation. He prayed and listened to his thoughts and feelings trying to glean inspiration. It didn't work in this case.

Overall, I don't think God cares much about the mundane. I think he's interested in the big picture stuff. He wants to point people in the general direction and then leaves it to them to make their own decisions. This goes for church leaders as well. They try to lead the church in the general direction God has set but they are the ones who create the policies, procedures etc. They are the ones that mess up and make mistakes. Not God. The problem is, when one declares that everything is revelation, it is really just passing the buck so God takes the blame when the wrong road is taken.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This reminds me of Elder Holland's Wrong Road message. In that story he share about how he and his son wondered which road they should take. They thought about it and then prayed to know which direction they should go. He received revelation and so he took the road. It was the wrong road. Ultimately, what he considered to be revelation from God, was actually wrong information. In truth, I suspect there wasn't any revelation. He prayed and listened to his thoughts and feelings trying to glean inspiration. It didn't work in this case.

Overall, I don't think God cares much about the mundane. I think he's interested in the big picture stuff. He wants to point people in the general direction and then leaves it to them to make their own decisions. This goes for church leaders as well. They try to lead the church in the general direction God has set but they are the ones who create the policies, procedures etc. They are the ones that mess up and make mistakes. Not God. The problem is, when one declares that everything is revelation, it is really just passing the buck so God takes the blame when the wrong road is taken.

Again, I don’t give much credence to your view about whether this or that “policy” of the Church is devoid of divine inspiration. No offense intended; that’s just how it is. 

Edited November 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This reminds me of Elder Holland's Wrong Road message. In that story he share about how he and his son wondered which road they should take. They thought about it and then prayed to know which direction they should go. He received revelation and so he took the road. It was the wrong road. Ultimately, what he considered to be revelation from God, was actually wrong information. In truth, I suspect there wasn't any revelation. He prayed and listened to his thoughts and feelings trying to glean inspiration. It didn't work in this case.

Overall, I don't think God cares much about the mundane. I think he's interested in the big picture stuff. He wants to point people in the general direction and then leaves it to them to make their own decisions. This goes for church leaders as well. They try to lead the church in the general direction God has set but they are the ones who create the policies, procedures etc. They are the ones that mess up and make mistakes. Not God. The problem is, when one declares that everything is revelation, it is really just passing the buck so God takes the blame when the wrong road is taken.

This has always made me wonder...if the road I have taken...will lead me to the big  picture...the real plan..and the understanding of it.   That is...a better  understanding of it.  What I have learned about judgement...encompassing compassionate love has been what keeps me praying. 

Edited November 1, 2018 by Jeanne

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

This has always made me wonder...if the road I have taken...will lead me to the big  picture...the real plan..and the understanding of it.   That is...a better  understanding of it.  What I have learned about judgement...encompassing compassionate love has been what keeps me praying. 

Jesus said. “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”

I believe that applies to any that one might be inclined to judge — including Church leaders. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well stated. 

I would add, though, that divine inspiration may well be a factor even with policies that are set in place in order to conform to the law. 

Is it necessary though in your view?

Can a calling be inspired because a person has professional training in the area of policy and once called, then uses their expertise to formulate the policy...possibly praying the Lord helps him to get it right, but the Lord knows his training is sufficient and so provides no specific direction?