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

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

1. Doesn’t matter; policies by nature can be excepted though established channels of authority. The scriptures are full of the Spirit telling people to do the unconventional and the counter-intuitive. Bishops and stake presidents will ask if they need an answer.

Yes, I agree, policies can be excepted (although this one was somewhat unique in that it gave specific qualifications for the "only" instances when FP approval should be requested). 

Policies can (and are) sometimes ignored by local leaders.  And the current policy is currently being overridden by the First Presidency.

What's odd is that the same man who taught that this policy reflected the will of the Lord, has now stated, 3.5 years later, that they made an exception nearly every time they were asked.

 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

2. No; it is consistent with His nature and how He deals with us. Abraham 3:25 and Moses 3:19 offer us the basis for a reasonable understanding and expectation of foreknowledge and omniscience. Of course, people have varying understandings and expectations of God and His revelations to His servants, and I suppose this can become an obstacle for some (e.g. “What did He really say to the prophets vs. what the prophets understood and conveyed?”).

Those scriptures don't speak to God's omniscience.  But if you want to make the Abraham 3:25 argument with respect to this policy:  that God simply let the Brethren give this policy a shot even though He knew it would be changed shortly; I can accept that.  But that position, to me, diminishes the importance of prophets, seers, and revelators as it suggest that they are just directing the affairs of the church with a trial and error approach.

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Speaking of revelation, why do you characterize members holding the first narrative as “wanting” and those in the second as “insisting”? Why offer only two narratives? The first could well be framed in terms of God responding to a situation, implementing a countermeasure, waiting to see and declare it good (per the Creation story), modifying it as things progress (do a word search for “not expedient” in the D&C); all this working through His servants.

"Wanting" because I don't think the "well meaning men trying their best to implement a good policy" is not how President Nelson has cast this policy.

"Insisting" because reflective of the revealed will of the Lord IS how President Nelson has cast this policy.

I don't believe that God created the earth and all in it and was waiting to see if it was good.  He knew it would be when He was still planning it spiritually.

I believe that when think we see God "modifying" it is really us working toward moving what we have done or written in accordance with His will.  God knows what He wants and He knows how to make it happen.  It is His imperfect servants that fail to properly implement His will.

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Revelation is still revelation no matter how it comes, and an omniscient God still has the self-control to wait and see what happens, otherwise His work and a glory would not require lesser beings' agency and learning curve to fulfill.

Yes, we are lesser beings with a learning curve.  Why not admit that the original policy was an error in our understanding of what God wants (rather than placing the blame for the heartache and confusion on Him) and get it out of the handbook!

[Calm]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

I honestly believe that everyone had an initial reaction of their own whether it be positive, negative or just confusion or wanting more clarification.

Pure and untouched by any of the context provided by others, negative or positive?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

I look forward to your thoughts on the modification.

Regarding this, if the Lord approved their final policy in 2015, why did they then grant exceptions to it in "nearly every case" where they were asked? 

Not in nearly every case asked.  But in nearly every case parents agreed to be supportive, etc. 

There is a very significant difference, imo.  Though there may have been very few of the former in the applications the First Presidency received if bishops were willing to say "no" themselves, as in 'there is no reason to pass this on to be approved if you won't accept ministers coming into your home to teach gospel principles and doctrine or intend your child to regularly attend church and not just when visiting relatives who are members, etc'.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

And, our 15 seers also should have known how things would play out.

Why?  Is there anything in scripture that indicates prophets should be clairvoyant in any situation they care to be?

Edit:  hope "clairvoyant" is less derogatory sounding than " fortune teller".

Edited September 25, 2019 by Calm

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not in nearly every case asked.  But in nearly every case parents agreed to be supportive, etc. 

There is a very significant difference, imo.  Though there may have been very few of the former in the applications the First Presidency received if bishops were willing to say "no" themselves, as in 'there is no reason to pass this on to be approved if you won't accept ministers coming into your home to teach gospel principles and doctrine or intend your child to regularly attend church and not just when visiting relatives who are members, etc'.

Parents must consent to their child being baptized so this policy really only ever applied to children with supportive parents.

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why?  Is there anything in scripture that indicates prophets should be fortune tellers in any situation they care to be?

They are never "fortune tellers".

But, when I sustain them as seers it is with the faith that they would be able to see situations like this and not pass a policy that would cause such heartache and confusion that it would cause them to pray for its repeal.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

He said that he believes the Lord revealed the policy that these children shouldn’t be baptized.

There is a difference between wanting something that causes pain for others and knowing it has to be done in order for there to be growth and less suffering in the future.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Parents must consent to their child being baptized so this policy really only ever applied to children with supportive parents.

Not really. I know plenty of parents who consent to baptism (to make grandparents or the children themselves happy), but do not support....as in allow their children to go to church, don't trash the Church in their homes, allow church members to minister to their children.

Support requires much more than a one time permission to have an ordinance done.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But, when I sustain them as seers it is with the faith that they would be able to see situations like this and not pass a policy that would cause such heartache and confusion that it would cause them to pray for its repeal.

I think this is a normal and reasonable expectation, especially given how the mantle of leadership is often taught in our faith.  I don't think it is in full agreement with actual doctrine and scripture though.

Jonah, for example....I think it reasonable for him to know his teaching would cause a change of heart, but first he ran in fear of their reaction and then got ticked off when they relented and weren't destroyed.

Joseph....reasonable to expect him to anticipate what giving the 116 pages to Martin would lead to, especially given how God was refusing (take the hint, Joseph!).

Quote

that it would cause them to pray for its repeal.

I don't read the talk as saying they prayed for its repeal, but rather for further instruction.

And I don't personally see it as a repeal, though I understand why some assume that it is the same as before because what I see as different is bringing a greater awareness of potential issues that need to be dealt with prior to baptism rather than the usual default assuming parents are open to ongoing church interaction and teaching simply by agreeing to their children being blest or baptized.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Calm

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not really. I know plenty of parents who consent to baptism (to make grandparents or the children themselves happy), but do not support....as in allow their children to go to church, don't trash the Church in their homes, allow church members to minister to their children.

Support requires much more than a one time permission to have an ordinance done.

Right.  And we don't know that the parents in these "exceptions" are any different.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Right.  And we don't know that the parents in these "exceptions" are any different.

I think we do in that what that support should be is spelled out.

Now they may be lying, but there at least is a verbal agreement that they will allow ministers in their home, etc.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think we do in that what that support should be is spelled out.

Now they may be lying, but there at least is a verbal agreement that they will allow ministers in their home, etc.

The requirements (that you're listing) of supportive parents are not given in the policy.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

The requirements (that you're listing) of supportive parents are not given in the policy.

And they didn't need to be when it was the First Presidency handling it.

I will wait until the handbook is either updated or obviously not going to be along with word of any training being given bishops for this decision, but I generally assume if something is spoken of as a requirement by the President of the Church, that means it is a requirement.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

And they didn't need to be when it was the First Presidency handling it.

I will wait until the handbook is either updated or obviously not going to be along with word of any training being given bishops for this decision, but I generally assume if something is spoken of as a requirement by the President of the Church, that means it is a requirement.

I've been in a bishopric when an exception was requested for the First Presidency (for another issue).  There really wasn't any back and forth communication about the situation.  But I will grant that we don't know how they handled these particular situations.

I'm also not opposed to them granting exceptions.  But, as I've tried to indicate, it does not give me the impression that the actual policy was the revealed will of the Lord.  And it is also sad for those families that were not able to convince their stake president to escalate.  Hopefully with this new announcement those families will be able to have their children baptized.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

And it is also sad for those families that were not able to convince their stake president to escalate.

I do get frustrated at times with how exceptions are often handled in our church, having limited options for appealing and even poor publication**** that exceptions can be had (multiple temple sealings for living women only being shared by word of mouth and therefore many leaders not even knowing it is a possibility is a big pet peeve of mine).

I don't believe exceptions mean the policy is wrong in general, just that it is recognized that it is not the best for everyone it can affect and therefore a door is left open for the few cases that are better treated another way.  When the few become many, that is when the policy needs to change...but that doesn't mean in my view previously it was wrong.

I am grateful we have flexibility allowed and not a 'one size must fit all all the time' approach in the Church.

****Though for me exceptions are more or less written into every policy or handbook instruction when we are taught leaders are supposed to seek the Spirit as well as use the Handbook.  Why would there be so much need for the Spirit if there were no exceptions allowed?

Edited September 26, 2019 by Calm

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, I agree, policies can be excepted (although this one was somewhat unique in that it gave specific qualifications for the "only" instances when FP approval should be requested). 

Policies can (and are) sometimes ignored by local leaders.  And the current policy is currently being overridden by the First Presidency.

What's odd is that the same man who taught that this policy reflected the will of the Lord, has now stated, 3.5 years later, that they made an exception nearly every time they were asked.

I would not advocate ignoring policies, but God is the judge of that. Ignore, override, disregard… I still prefer “exception” because that is more in line with what I’ve seen done, and respecting the actual term President Nelson used.

I don’t see neither exceptions mentioned in your post here Posted Monday at 09:58 PM Nor do I see specific, exclusive “onlys”. Do you have a policy that uses either of those words or conveys either of those meanings?

Exceptions were not made nearly every time they were asked; his transcript reads: “In nearly every case where the LGBT parents agreed to teach their children about—and be supportive of—the covenant of baptism, the requested exception was granted.” It is odd that you would read something else into that.

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Those scriptures don't speak to God's omniscience.  But if you want to make the Abraham 3:25 argument with respect to this policy:  that God simply let the Brethren give this policy a shot even though He knew it would be changed shortly; I can accept that.  But that position, to me, diminishes the importance of prophets, seers, and revelators as it suggest that they are just directing the affairs of the church with a trial and error approach.

Correct, the scriptures I provided speak to the approach God takes, not His omniscience. He acts, waits and sees, and goes to the next step. Some may see that as omniscient and others not. But let’s not digress; sufficient to recognize that our respective concepts of God and revelation are evident in our views of whether or not exceptions are indicators of mistakes in making and following policy. There well could be an element of trial and error in some matters, but that hardly diminishes the collaboration between God and His servants. You seem to have an all-or-nothing perspective; that God uses only one approach. I’m suggesting He used a graduated approach that involved both revelation and “trial-and-error” (an extremely poor term for what I was describing) on His part, not the prophets’, seers’, and revelators’.

There is a series of articles in this month’s Ensign about perfectionism which I think are helpful in conceptualizing that God is not rigidly tied to strict, singular approaches as a condition of His perfection.

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

"Wanting" because I don't think the "well meaning men trying their best to implement a good policy" is not how President Nelson has cast this policy.

"Insisting" because reflective of the revealed will of the Lord IS how President Nelson has cast this policy.

I don't believe that God created the earth and all in it and was waiting to see if it was good.  He knew it would be when He was still planning it spiritually.

I believe that when think we see God "modifying" it is really us working toward moving what we have done or written in accordance with His will.  God knows what He wants and He knows how to make it happen.  It is His imperfect servants that fail to properly implement His will.

I think your use of “wanting” vs “insisting” comes across as bias against those who believe President Nelson’s version.

The Creation scriptures say God saw that the outcome of each day’s command was good, implying both a time of waiting and waiting to find out. Knowing what One wants and how to make it happen is not the same as executing it with partner-servants. But that is not the only way He works. As with the Creation (and we know He must have had some heavenly partners in that), He sometimes knows what He wants, how to make it happen, and executes it in faith, waiting for the desired outcome.

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, we are lesser beings with a learning curve.  Why not admit that the original policy was an error in our understanding of what God wants (rather than placing the blame for the heartache and confusion on Him) and get it out of the handbook!

Because in my analysis and experience with this topic, more indicators point to God taking a step-wise revelatory approach (as I described it) than to prophetic error in designing, then making exceptions and changes to this policy. It is interesting to me that "admit" is used as a device for someone to reject a revelatory explanation.

Edited September 25, 2019 by CV75

[alter idem]

On 9/21/2019 at 6:44 PM, rockpond said:

I think they underestimated the spirituality of the membership.

My opposition to this policy had nothing to do with "modern progressive society" nor left leaning politics.  It had EVERYTHING to do with my understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ and my feeling that He certainly did not approve of this policy.

But we have a problem, because I had the exact opposite response that you had.  I felt that it was done to protect the church and to protect the rights of the parents of those children who did not share their religious beliefs.  I did not feel that Christ disapproved of the policy.  I was surprised at the many people who were upset with it when I was not.  So, who was wrong?  Those who were upset with the 2015 policy or those who agreed with it?  It depends on who's side you share.  I think it can be hard to set aside our own political, social and emotional positions if they are not in line with the churches.  I think that's what happened.  I think that if I want to have the spiritual strength and faith of Nephi or Samuel or Joshua, I would pray to reconcile myself to the decision of my leaders and so that's the example I try to follow.

[california boy]

15 hours ago, kllindley said:

Maybe the purpose was actually what they claimed: to reduce conflict.  In a case where the parents wanted the exception badly enough to petition the First Presidency,  it seems that they had in that act demonstrated their understanding and consent to the conditions President Nelson identified.  

I think it is at best an uncharitable characterization to say that what was important to the Lord was not baptizing those Children. 

A simple test to this theory of yours is to ask the question, "Was there more conflict and anger going on within families before the November policy was announced or after it was announced?"  Personally, I don't recall so many people so angry, so in conflict, and so upset that they. were willing to leave the church over this issue, over any other church policy ever issued in my lifetime.

When those on this board make this kind of claim, it only leads me to remember, we believe what we want to believe.  I get that you are a faithful member of the church and the decisions you have made for your life are at the foundation, based on your belief that the brethren always speak for God.  And that seems to be working for you. But, as you can tell from all of the turmoil this policy has caused. not everyone thinks that Church leaders ALWAYS speak for God.  And not every decision they have made has been proven to be the right decision.  Pretending that the November policy caused less conflict in the homes of not only gay parents and their children, but in the homes of countless members of the church is in my opinion a classic case of denial.  If you have any supporting evidence of such a claim, I would love to weigh that against the overwhelming evidence of the conflict and anger within families this policy has caused.

[california boy]

Sorry duplicate post

Edited September 26, 2019 by california boy

[blueglass]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

A simple test to this theory of yours is to ask the question, "Was there more conflict and anger going on within families before the November policy was announced or after it was announced?"  Personally, I don't recall so many people so angry, so in conflict, and so upset that they. were willing to leave the church over this issue, over any other church policy ever issued in my lifetime.

When those on this board make this kind of claim, it only leads me to remember, we believe what we want to believe.  I get that you are a faithful member of the church and the decisions you have made for your life are at the foundation, based on your belief that the brethren always speak for God.  And that seems to be working for you. But, as you can tell from all of the turmoil this policy has caused. not everyone thinks that Church leaders ALWAYS speak for God.  And not every decision they have made has been proven to be the right decision.  Pretending that the November policy caused less conflict in the homes of not only gay parents and their children, but in the homes of countless members of the church is in my opinion a classic case of denial.  If you have any supporting evidence of such a claim, I would love to weigh that against the overwhelming evidence of the conflict and anger within families this policy has caused.

Yes I agree.  The purpose of the policy was to intentionally increase conflict, churn, and to force families to decide "who's on the Lord's side who?" A favorite hymn sung during the time the policy/revelation was in place.  Another saying popular among the orthodox was to whistle as people resigned membership and proclaim, "the wagon train moves forward towards Zion with or without you." 

[gopher]

15 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Yes I agree.  The purpose of the policy was to intentionally increase conflict, churn, and to force families to decide "who's on the Lord's side who?" A favorite hymn sung during the time the policy/revelation was in place.  Another saying popular among the orthodox was to whistle as people resigned membership and proclaim, "the wagon train moves forward towards Zion with or without you." 

That's the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that is causing anger, doubt, loss of faith, and threads on this forum to go past 20 pages.

[SettingDogStar]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

A simple test to this theory of yours is to ask the question, "Was there more conflict and anger going on within families before the November policy was announced or after it was announced?"  Personally, I don't recall so many people so angry, so in conflict, and so upset that they. were willing to leave the church over this issue, over any other church policy ever issued in my lifetime.

When those on this board make this kind of claim, it only leads me to remember, we believe what we want to believe.  I get that you are a faithful member of the church and the decisions you have made for your life are at the foundation, based on your belief that the brethren always speak for God.  And that seems to be working for you. But, as you can tell from all of the turmoil this policy has caused. not everyone thinks that Church leaders ALWAYS speak for God.  And not every decision they have made has been proven to be the right decision.  Pretending that the November policy caused less conflict in the homes of not only gay parents and their children, but in the homes of countless members of the church is in my opinion a classic case of denial.  If you have any supporting evidence of such a claim, I would love to weigh that against the overwhelming evidence of the conflict and anger within families this policy has caused.

Agreed. Whether it was done to resolve conflict or not, it utterly failed in every conceivable way for that purpose. 

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

That's the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that is causing anger, doubt, loss of faith, and threads on this forum to go past 20 pages.

just to be clear portraying the policy/revelation as originating from the love of our Savior is what caused anger, doubt, loss of faith.  This is what caused concern, confusion, and heartache which is why we can be sure that it originates from lucifer who is the "father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another." 

 

[alter idem]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

Yes I agree.  The purpose of the policy was to intentionally increase conflict, churn, and to force families to decide "who's on the Lord's side who?" A favorite hymn sung during the time the policy/revelation was in place.  Another saying popular among the orthodox was to whistle as people resigned membership and proclaim, "the wagon train moves forward towards Zion with or without you." 

Except that it didn't cause conflict, inflict pain or anger in a lot of families--even those with gay family members(such as my own).  It caused conflict for some because they disagreed with the decision. It caused conflict for others because they saw how upset some people were over it--and we saw how the press ginned up that conflict with the way this was reported and then it was used to promote people publicly resigning their church memberships to keep the controversy in the news.  This was IMO, done to do damage to the church and make leaders look cruel and homophobic, and IMO, it worked to some extent, which is why the policy was later rescinded.  There was no reason to leave it in place, when it was so misunderstood and misrepresented, that's obvious.   Surprising that you say it was 'popular among the orthodox to whistle as people resigned membership and proclaim 'the wagon train moves forward toward Zion with or without you', since I never heard a whistle or a statement like that from any members, orthodox or otherwise. Maybe it was done at a bonfire made of baptismal, priesthood or temple sealing certificates--I don't know and maybe I missed that.  But, what I experienced, was that I sat in church meetings and simply kept my mouth shut when a handful of times, this was brought up, and people expressed unhappiness over it, because it was clearly an emotionally charged subject and trying to discuss it rationally was not going to work, rather it would bring contention to the class. I'm pretty sure we didn't sing 'who's on the Lord's side' either, but that's because in my ward we only sing a handful of hymns--the top 10 play list--usually 'I believe in Christ' or 'Because I have been Given much'.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, blueglass said:

just to be clear portraying the policy/revelation as originating from the love of our Savior is what caused anger, doubt, loss of faith.  This is what caused concern, confusion, and heartache which is why we can be sure that it originates from lucifer who is the "father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another." 

 

I don't think it works that way.  Many of the Savior's teachings caused anger, doubt, and a loss of faith but no one would argue that that is how we can be sure that His teachings originated from lucifer.