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

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How so?  How do you imagine "common consent" should be administered?

And I was wrong before to say that we do it every six months.  We also observe common consent virtually every week at the ward level.

Is it your understanding that an opposing vote has a "veto"-like power inherent in it?

If so, could you clarify how you arrived at such an idea?

Thanks,

-Smac

In the OT there seems to be examples of a sustaining assembly, in the NT, there is the example of drawing lots, in the Book of Mormon the people chose judges by majority. In LDS understanding, doctrine becomes such after a sustaining vote,  which doesn't seem to be the case now, and I think that scripturally, the presidency is to be chosen with a step that is no longer used. 

(None of that implies that an individual has veto power, and neither did my comment imply individual veto power.)

The early church including Joseph Smith spoke of common consent as a "vote," and such would seem to be more consistent with majorities choosing judges in the Book of Mormon.

Considering the meaning of consent, and voting, and scriptural precedent, the church seems to be to some extent departed from the initial meaning and the earlier practices.

[Jake Starkey]

This continuing discussion on the confusing history and progress (?) of the proclamation may well be a point of crisis in the LDS Church.

The Latter Day Seeks movement, which the CoC is trying to tap with some success, continues to grow.

 

The millennial and younger active LDS do not see why  the proclamation is necessary and see how it is hurting and damaging their friends and relatives and others.

They ask, "Is this what Jesus would do?"

Edited September 20, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In the OT there seems to be examples of a sustaining assembly, in the NT, there is the example of drawing lots, in the Book of Mormon the people chose judges by majority. In LDS understanding, doctrine becomes such after a sustaining vote,  which doesn't seem to be the case now, and I think that scripturally, the presidency is to be chosen with a step that is no longer used. 

(None of that implies that an individual has veto power, and neither did my comment imply individual veto power.)
The early church including Joseph Smith spoke of common consent as a "vote," and such would seem to be more consistent with majorities choosing judges in the Book of Mormon.

Considering the meaning of consent, and voting, and scriptural precedent, the church seems to be to some extent departed from the initial meaning and the earlier practices.

All of which indicates a temporal law with no binding authority on spiritual things.

Which is why we vote only to sustain our leaders, never to choose them.  But we do (in theory) have the right to vote on administrative items.

The actual problem isn't with common consent, but that the Church has blurred the line between the spiritual and the administrative which results only in sustaining, never in actual voting.

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

How so?  How do you imagine "common consent" should be administered?

And I was wrong before to say that we do it every six months.  We also observe common consent virtually every week at the ward level.

Is it your understanding that an opposing vote has a "veto"-like power inherent in it?

If so, could you clarify how you arrived at such an idea?

Thanks,

-Smac

In the OT there seems to be examples of a sustaining assembly,

Okay.  What examples do you have in mind?  

20 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

in the NT, there is the example of drawing lots,

How is drawing lots relevant to "common consent?"

20 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

in the Book of Mormon the people chose judges by majority.

Again, how is this relevant to "common consent?" 

The Nephites were living in a quasi-theocracy (where some of the judges held both civil and religious authority).  We don't have that situation today.  And the selection of the judges was primarily a secular, not religious, exercise.

20 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In LDS understanding, doctrine becomes such after a sustaining vote,  which doesn't seem to be the case now, and I think that scripturally, the presidency is to be chosen with a step that is no longer used. 

I don't think that's right.  I invite you to review the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entries on "Doctrine" and "Common Consent."

20 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

(None of that implies that an individual has veto power, and neither did my comment imply individual veto power.)

Okay.  I guess I don't understand your declaration that we do no observe "Common Consent" in the Church today.  I think we do.  A lot, actually.

20 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The early church including Joseph Smith spoke of common consent as a "vote," and such would seem to be more consistent with majorities choosing judges in the Book of Mormon.

Theoretically, yes.  However, the sustaining votes are overwhelming, such that counting them (to identify the "majority") would seem to be unnecessary.

That does not mean, however, that a sustaining vote, or an opposing vote, are devoid of meaning.  For example, I have a friend who gave an opposing vote pertaining to a person receiving a calling in her ward.  She later spoke with the bishop and explained the basis for her opposing vote (she knew something about the person that the bishop had not known).  The calling was rescinded.

A lot more information about "Common Consent" is available here.

20 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Considering the meaning of consent, and voting, and scriptural precedent, the church seems to be to some extent departed from the initial meaning and the earlier practices.

In a sense, you are correct.  The administration of the Church in, say, the 1830s is necessarily very different from the administration of the Church in 2019.  The Church is worldwide now.  There are millions of members.  There are thousands of properties, and billions in tithes and investments and such.  Are you suggesting that "Common Consent" should be deployed to evaluate every decision regarding every individual or asset or dollar in the Church?  If so, how would you propose that work?

And if you concede, as I think you must, that this alternative interpretation and application of "Common Consent" is unworkable, then we are either left with A) disbanding the Church, or B) adapting to new circumstances, while still observing "Common Consent" as appropriate.  In other words, our disagreement would be more a question of degree, not kind.

By way of clarification, let's look at the D&C Manual (emphasis added):

Quote

D&C 26:2. The Law of Common Consent

Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent. This law is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside. (D. & C. 20:60–67; 26:2; 28; 38:34–35; 41:9–11; 42:11; 102:9; 124:124–145.)” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 149–50.)

Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2).

I think the Church does this.  (I wonder if the changes to the CHI fit within the parameters of the bolded section above.  I could see it going either way.)

Also the Church History Study Guide:

Quote

Doctrine and Covenants 26:2—What Does “Common Consent” Mean?

In an earlier revelation the Lord declared, “No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church” (D&C 20:65). The principle of requiring all ordinations and callings to be sustained by the Church members has become known as the law of common consent (D&C 26:2). Speaking about common consent, Elder Mark E. Petersen, who was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, explained: “This rules out cultists of all kinds, false teachers and false leaders of every description, and puts the Lord’s people on notice that there is but one clear directing voice in the Church, and that is the voice of the prophet, r, and revelator duly chosen by revelation and accepted by the vote of the people in the general conference of the Church” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1974, 82; orEnsign,May 1974, 56).

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, spoke of how important that sustaining vote is to the leaders of the Church: “I especially thank you for sustaining your leaders, whatever their personal sense of limitation may be. This morning, in common consent, you volunteered to uphold—or more literally ‘hold up’—the presiding officers of the kingdom, those who bear the keys and responsibility for the work, not one man of whom sought the position or feels equal to the task. And even when Jeffrey Holland’s name is proposed as the last and the least of the newly ordained, your arm goes lovingly to the square. And you say to Brother Holland through his tears and his nights of walking the floor: ‘You lean on us. Lean on us out here in Omaha and Ontario and Osaka, where we have never even n you and scarcely know who you are. But you are one of the “Brethren,” so you are no stranger or foreigner to us, but a fellow citizen in the household of God. You will be prayed for in our family, and you will hold a place within our hearts. Our strength shall be your strength. Our faith will build your faith. Your work will be our work’” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1994, 41–42; orEnsign,Nov. 1994, 32).

And this Sperry Symposium Article (I was going to post excerpts, but it's too long and too worth a read in its entirety).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure what she meant by that either.  Maybe/hopefully she will elaborate.  I just thought her position was interesting, in that we usually assume that those who are a part of the LGBTQ community were against the Nov. policy, and she bucks that assumption.

I’d love to hear how the policy could have actually saved many lives!  I can’t imagine how it would have done that (if she meant it literally 😊).

Edited September 19, 2019 by JulieM

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I’d love to hear how the policy could have actually saved many lives!  I can’t imagine how it would have done that (if she meant it literally 😊).

If it saved lives then Nelson has made another big mistake by identifying that it has hurt many people, as they plead with God.  That really only makes it all worse and messier, if true.  

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I’d love to hear how the policy could have actually saved many lives!  I can’t imagine how it would have done that (if she meant it literally 😊).

I went back and found the thread and she had posted some more, clarifying that she has personally known many LGBTQ+ household kids who were beaten, disowned, and/or killed (her words) for showing an interest in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  As far as I can see that's the only clarification she has provided.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If it saved lives then Nelson has made another big mistake by identifying that it has hurt many people, as they plead with God.  That really only makes it all worse and messier, if true.  

Pres. Nelson can do no right, it seems.

Funny, that.

-Smac

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I went back and found the thread and she had posted some more, clarifying that she has personally known many LGBTQ+ household kids who were beaten, disowned, and/or killed (her words) for showing an interest in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  As far as I can see that's the only clarification she has provided.

I find this claim needing some documentation as much as I would like to see documentation on specific reasons LGBT kids claim they were kicked out of their homes solely for being LGBT (I suspect it is more complicated than represented in most cases).  Unless parents are already highly abusive, being killed is highly unlikely in my view. 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Calm

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I went back and found the thread and she had posted some more, clarifying that she has personally known many LGBTQ+ household kids who were beaten, disowned, and/or killed (her words) for showing an interest in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  As far as I can see that's the only clarification she has provided.

Assuming it's true...

1)  I hope she was reporting the parents of these many beaten, disowned, and killed kids to child protective services and/or law enforcement.

2)  It is unclear to me how the implementation of the policy would have had any impact on these situations.

 

[Calm]

Just now, rockpond said:

is unclear to me how the implementation of the policy would have had any impact on these situations.

 

Prevent the kids from talking to missionaries perhaps?  But don’t they have to have parental consent anyway?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Prevent the kids from talking to missionaries perhaps?  But don’t they have to have parental consent anyway?

Perhaps.  But it didn't stop our ward's missionaries from teaching the teenager of a lesbian couple.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Perhaps.  But it didn't stop our ward's missionaries from teaching the teenager of a lesbian couple.

With or without permission?

I don’t see why it would make much difference in the actual rules, but those who are not familiar with the rules might assume the Church would automatically reject any interaction.

However the claim of a youth being killed for expressing interest is extreme enough it raises doubts, imo, on her entire claim, even though I do believe the policy likely helped reduce some conflict in some families (if only to cause some grandparents to back off pushing for grandkids to be baptized, etc) and it would be nice imo to see some solid evidence for this.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Calm

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

I find this claim needing some documentation as much as I would like to see documentation on specific reasons LGBT kids claim they were kicked out of their homes solely for being LGBT (I suspect it is more complicated than represented in most cases).  Unless parents are already highly abusive, being killed is highly unlikely in my view. 

I was thinking the same. 

[stemelbow]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Pres. Nelson can do no right, it seems.

Funny, that.

-Smac

Sure he can.  don't be so glum.  Just pointing out the obvious, in this case.  As I said, if it saved lives and was not difficult people, then he would be wrong to say they were responding to those who were hurt by it by pleading with God, after it was establishing in 2015.  

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Pres. Nelson can do no right, it seems.

Funny, that.

-Smac

Sure he can. 

I agree.  But expectations of, essentially, "Capitulate on the Law of Chastity, not based on any revelation, but instead to kowtow to critics and dissidents" and "Pubicly grovel before your self-appointed betters" do not seem "right" to me.

But I think these are the only conditions on which some will grant any good faith to Pres. Nelson.  And perhaps not even then.

If and when we receive revelation revising the Law of Chastity so as to legitimize homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage, I'll need to do a lot of thinking and praying.  Meanwhile, however, I'm sticking with what we know.  And what we know is at odds with the apparent expectation as summarized above.

Quote

don't be so glum. 

I don't feel glum at all. 

Quote

Just pointing out the obvious, in this case.  As I said, if it saved lives and was not difficult people, then he would be wrong to say they were responding to those who were hurt by it by pleading with God, after it was establishing in 2015.  

"When you look for the bad, expecting it, you will get it." -Eleanor H. Porter.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 19, 2019 by smac97

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I haven't read through this entire thread yet, so I apologize if this has already been shared, but this article is a good representation of how Nelson's devotional is being reported in LGBT circles (this particular article is written by a former member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints):

I too haven't read the entire thread. I found time to listen to Nelson's talk but little else when it comes to this. Personally, I wasn't surprised by what was mentioned. It held similar conclusions that I held from what I was reading and hearing from them over the years plus our doctrinal beliefs around marriage in general. And what little interaction I've had with the apostles to me generally indicates having good intent or purpose to what they're trying to do. 

I trust your analysis that this is a good representation of what is being reported in LGBT circles, but I do find it problematic on a number of points.

1.) gaslighting to me, is definitely something that gets stretched in its use. And this is definitely one of those moments to me, though the person tried to frame it at least in its correct use...it still assumes intent on "the mormon church," the leaders, and specifically Pres. Nelson. Intent is kind of important for Gaslighting to stick. Are they actively trying to put up a smokescreen, mislead, or bold face lie through this in order to cause pain, create doubts in one's sanity, etc? If so, then I'd agree with the use. But I think that's a hard case to make. 

2.) a number of the beliefs presented about the church aren't actually the beliefs it professes. Either they're more nuanced or simply incorrect. Which creates a bit of a strawman in the post and one that could inadevertently augment the pain they're talking about. Both in the families and for LDS LGBTQ+ people individually. 

3.) in a similar line continually calling it "the mormon church" mixed with an extreme representation of its members isn't likely to create bridges or mend wounds. It's more likely to shut down conversation for people trying to reach some sort of middle ground with their family. 

4.) The way it presents suicide in UT in general. And the assumptions about it, the LDS faith, and LGBTQ people in UT are way too broad-brushed and possibly even false/based off common belief, but not what the research and numbers are currently actually indicating. Personally, as a therapist in UT working heavily with LDS populations, I've dealt with many many people struggling with suicidal ideation and a few attempts (luckily so far no completed deaths). So far only 1 was LGBTQ. All of their reasons were more complex than one single issue or concern. It makes me uncomfortable to use a story of a woman to paint a picture about suicide when it's likely they (Kat) don't know exactly what occurred to trigger her death.  Especially since I knew the family of the woman they're talking about who passed away (NOT one of my clients, to be clear). I do understand that the person is likely trying to humanize the pain....but that can be done in a way that may not actually be helpful. 

 

I'm not sure why I'm writing this. I think I've just been thinking about differences in belief and how we communicate them towards each other lately. How what we say and how we say it can continue wedges or further them, without us meaning to. I've seen that in my own family along a number of issues (Politics, race, religion, parenting, etc). It's interesting to me how presenting information in one way or another can shut down communication and entrench beliefs. 

 

With luv,

BD 

 

 

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I too haven't read the entire thread. I found time to listen to Nelson's talk but little else when it comes to this. Personally, I wasn't surprised by what was mentioned. It held similar conclusions that I held from what I was reading and hearing from them over the years plus our doctrinal beliefs around marriage in general. And what little interaction I've had with the apostles to me generally indicates having good intent or purpose to what they're trying to do. 

I trust your analysis that this is a good representation of what is being reported in LGBT circles, but I do find it problematic on a number of points.

1.) gaslighting to me, is definitely something that gets stretched in its use. And this is definitely one of those moments to me, though the person tried to frame it at least in its correct use...it still assumes intent on "the mormon church," the leaders, and specifically Pres. Nelson. Intent is kind of important for Gaslighting to stick. Are they actively trying to put up a smokescreen, mislead, or bold face lie through this in order to cause pain, create doubts in one's sanity, etc? If so, then I'd agree with the use. But I think that's a hard case to make. 

2.) a number of the beliefs presented about the church aren't actually the beliefs it professes. Either they're more nuanced or simply incorrect. Which creates a bit of a strawman in the post and one that could inadevertently augment the pain they're talking about. Both in the families and for LDS LGBTQ+ people individually. 

3.) in a similar line continually calling it "the mormon church" mixed with an extreme representation of its members isn't likely to create bridges or mend wounds. It's more likely to shut down conversation for people trying to reach some sort of middle ground with their family. 

4.) The way it presents suicide in UT in general. And the assumptions about it, the LDS faith, and LGBTQ people in UT are way too broad-brushed and possibly even false/based off common belief, but not what the research and numbers are currently actually indicating. Personally, as a therapist in UT working heavily with LDS populations, I've dealt with many many people struggling with suicidal ideation and a few attempts (luckily so far no completed deaths). So far only 1 was LGBTQ. All of their reasons were more complex than one single issue or concern. It makes me uncomfortable to use a story of a woman to paint a picture about suicide when it's likely they (Kat) don't know exactly what occurred to trigger her death.  Especially since I knew the family of the woman they're talking about who passed away (NOT one of my clients, to be clear). I do understand that the person is likely trying to humanize the pain....but that can be done in a way that may not actually be helpful. 

 

I'm not sure why I'm writing this. I think I've just been thinking about differences in belief and how we communicate them towards each other lately. How what we say and how we say it can continue wedges or further them, without us meaning to. I've seen that in my own family along a number of issues (Politics, race, religion, parenting, etc). It's interesting to me how presenting information in one way or another can shut down communication and entrench beliefs. 

 

With luv,

BD 

 

 

I agree with most of your assessment of the article, but I wanted to comment on this gaslighting concept.

While I also agree that it is often used incorrectly in this context, I understand why people gravitate toward that word.  Take this policy for example...

I was opposed to the policy from the moment I heard about it.  But when President Nelson proclaimed it to be the result of the “prophetic process” I was told by many that the policy was the revealed will of the Lord and so I was wrong to oppose it. 

Now the policy has been reversed or maybe  just altered (an official policy still hasn’t been published).  And already I’m watching as the prophet’s words are being reinterpreted before my eyes.  Now, it isn’t that the policy was revealed, it’s just that God inspired them to do “something” and this was the something they came up with.  Whereas before it was a magnificent revelatory experience (per Pres. Nelson in Jan 2016), Pres. Oaks and Pres. Nelson now simply refer to it as a handbook characterization and a policy. 

Is there malicious intent?  No, I don’t believe so. But is there intent to defend their authority?  After two major YSA devotionals on the topic, it feels that way.

Does all this make me question my sanity?  No. But there are times when I feel that staying fully engaged with the church might make me insane.

 

[CV75]

On September 17, 2019 at 6:48 PM, california boy said:

You are going to have to explain what you mean.  What experience and understanding was changed?

I don't see how building temples has to do with this discussion.

Handbook instructions typically arise from local leaders asking the same questions due to a common lack of experience and understanding. There was always room for exceptions anyway. I'm guessing that experience and understanding expanded rapidly over the 3-1/2 years, I'm guessing due to expanded public awareness, and so such instructions were no longer needed. The same with definitions provided in policy.

I am suggesting that the same kind of empathetic supplication for those affected by the original policy is a pattern that was also evident in getting revelation for the even smaller temples President Nelson recently announced.

 

[let’s roll]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Does all this make me question my sanity?  No. But there are times when I feel that staying fully engaged with the church might make me insane.

My experience has been my time is much better spent doing all I can to stay fully engaged with Deity.  When that relationship is healthy, the peace it brings truly does surpass all understanding.  One of the by-products is that I have a genuine compulsion to love my brothers and sisters, inside and outside the church.

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

I was opposed to the policy from the moment I heard about it.  But when President Nelson proclaimed it to be the result of the “prophetic process” I was told by many that the policy was the revealed will of the Lord and so I was wrong to oppose it. 

Now the policy has been reversed or maybe  just altered (an official policy still hasn’t been published).  And already I’m watching as the prophet’s words are being reinterpreted before my eyes.  Now, it isn’t that the policy was revealed, it’s just that God inspired them to do “something” and this was the something they came up with.  

I have always thought of prophetic revelation in those terms (good chance God reveals or pushes the importance of a general principle, rather then precise step by step details) so nothing has changed in the way I am intending to present it. 

I don’t know if others who see both the policy and the reversal as inspired see it the same way, but I see no reason to assume otherwise for most. 

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I agree with most of your assessment of the article, but I wanted to comment on this gaslighting concept.

While I also agree that it is often used incorrectly in this context, I understand why people gravitate toward that word.  Take this policy for example...

I was opposed to the policy from the moment I heard about it.  But when President Nelson proclaimed it to be the result of the “prophetic process” I was told by many that the policy was the revealed will of the Lord and so I was wrong to oppose it. 

Now the policy has been reversed or maybe  just altered (an official policy still hasn’t been published).  And already I’m watching as the prophet’s words are being reinterpreted before my eyes.  Now, it isn’t that the policy was revealed, it’s just that God inspired them to do “something” and this was the something they came up with.  Whereas before it was a magnificent revelatory experience (per Pres. Nelson in Jan 2016), Pres. Oaks and Pres. Nelson now simply refer to it as a handbook characterization and a policy. 

Is there malicious intent?  No, I don’t believe so. But is there intent to defend their authority?  After two major YSA devotionals on the topic, it feels that way.

Does all this make me question my sanity?  No. But there are times when I feel that staying fully engaged with the church might make me insane.

 

He was just talking about how authority has now been delegated to bishops so that bishops no longer need approval from the First Presidency every time.  The bishops still need to follow the procedures outlined by the First Presidency.  Just making it easier on everybody.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Ahab

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, let’s roll said:

My experience has been my time is much better spent doing all I can to stay fully engaged with Deity.  When that relationship is healthy, the peace it brings truly does surpass all understanding.  One of the by-products is that I have a genuine compulsion to love my brothers and sisters, inside and outside the church.

I agree and I focus first and foremost on my relationship with the Lord and what that drives me to do. 

But what you’ve written here doesn’t really change the fact that sometimes engagement with the church can make me question my sanity. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

He was just talking about how authority has now been delegated to bishops so that bishops no longer need approval from the First Presidency every time.  The bishops still need to follow the procedures outlined by the First Presidency.  Just making it easier on everybody.

That’s not how Presidents Nelson and Oaks have presented it.  But we don’t really know what the policy will look like in the end since it hasn’t been published yet. 

[let’s roll]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree and I focus first and foremost on my relationship with the Lord and what that drives me to do. 

But what you’ve written here doesn’t really change the fact that sometimes engagement with the church can make me question my sanity. 

FWIW, being a 49ers fan has the same effect on me. 

Godspeed to you.