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

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I am certain God heard the supplications of our leaders with respect to reversing the policy.

He also heard the supplications of members.

Absolutely, and I believe He also did so to initiate the policy. Since you were focusing on the policy not reflecting God's will, I offered an example where God changed His will (which would have hurt people) in response to prophetic mediation and supplication. I think we see that same pattern here, with His inspiring/revealing and then revising/rescinding the policy after 3+ years.

I think the fundamental issue is how one perceives God to perform His work vis-a-vis one's personal will.

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I also added (maybe you missed the edit):

And yes, as it stands, it is confusing and not clear (since the original policy that has now been changed, is still in the current handbook).  That hopefully will be edited.

I just know bishops who are not as confused and distressed as yours 9especially if he's handling actual cases), and it sounds like he could use some coaching.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

As far as we know (until the policy is actually updated in the handbook), we are right back to handling this issue as we were (on a local level) prior to the announcement of the policy.

What do you see that is different?

I had 3 questions that I would like you to respond to which will help me address your question:

What are you using for the reasons given by the Church for the policy?

Why did these reasons not feel right to you?

Given that so much has happened since November 2015, exactly what do you think has not changed?

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I just know bishops who are not as confused and distressed as yours 9especially if he's handling actual cases), and it sounds like he could use some coaching.

I did not state "distressed".  You're exaggerating here regarding what I stated.  Once again I added:

Quote

 

ETA:

I don't want to give the impression there is urgency here on this....just a need for clarity for the future.

 

 

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

1.  What are you using for the reasons given by the Church for the policy?

2.  Why did these reasons not feel right to you?

3.  Given that so much has happened since November 2015, exactly what do you think has not changed?

1.  Do you really want to go over all the reasons given by the Church for the policy?  Those have been discussed at length here.  I'll try to find one of the numerous threads to link to for you, if you'd like.

2.  After praying about this policy, none of those reasons felt right and I also believe the policy was not God's will.  I'm happy that changes have been made.

3.  I answered that above.  The baptisms of all children are to be handled on a local level (and approved) now.  That's how it was prior to the policy.

How about you answer my question if you disagree.....What do you see that is different?

Edited September 26, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

39 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Absolutely, and I believe He also did so to initiate the policy. Since you were focusing on the policy not reflecting God's will, I offered an example where God changed His will (which would have hurt people) in response to prophetic mediation and supplication. I think we see that same pattern here, with His inspiring/revealing and then revising/rescinding the policy after 3+ years.

I think the fundamental issue is how one perceives God to perform His work vis-a-vis one's personal will.

I think you've made a case for God having compassion and choosing not to punish his people.

But I still can't believe that the original policy was the will of God.  The Spirit testifies otherwise to me and I have to go with the Holy Ghost.

So, I can believe that God may be inspiring the prophet to rescind the policy now but I also don't think that prophet needs that inspiration either.  I think the prophet can exercise his compassion and judgment to rescind it in accord with the apostles.

[nuclearfuels]

On 9/17/2019 at 2:22 PM, kllindley said:

 

This was a powerful talk about Heavenly Father's love for us, truth, and Divine Law.  He also addresses quite openly the Nov. 15th Policy.  This included how and why it was implemented.  He also talked about the events that led up to the change in the policy.  It was clear how much he loves people and how much he seeks to follow Heavenly Father's will.  

 

It is amazing to me - how inspirational this sermon was.

Like Paul and Alma the Younger, President Nelson used logic to reason with the younger generation.

It is also amazing to me how many discussion boards and comment sections I have been banned from for stating something quite similar to: The Church leaders didn't invent biology, marriage, procreation, etc. - same as math, gravity, inertia - and in general, one can not redefine things one did not create.

 

 

[Ahab]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think you've made a case for God having compassion and choosing not to punish his people.

But I still can't believe that the original policy was the will of God.  The Spirit testifies otherwise to me and I have to go with the Holy Ghost.

So, I can believe that God may be inspiring the prophet to rescind the policy now but I also don't think that prophet needs that inspiration either.  I think the prophet can exercise his compassion and judgment to rescind it in accord with the apostles.

Just to be clear here: the change was not a change in policy so much as a change in procedures. 

Before the change: Bishops needed to seek direct and personal approval from the First Presidency each and every time a same sex couple household had children who wanted to be baptized.

 Now, after the change: Bishops no longer need to seek direct and personal approval from the First Presidency each and every time.  They just need to follow the directions that have been given by the First Presidency.

Not much of a change, if you ask me.  Just less direct and personal correspondence between bishops and the First Presidency.  Bishops are still expected to follow the directions the  First Presidency gives them, though.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I did not state "distressed".  You're exaggerating here regarding what I stated.  Once again I added:

 

1.  Do you really want to go over all the reasons given by the Church for the policy?  Those have been discussed at length here.  I'll try to find one of the numerous threads to link to for you, if you'd like.

2.  After praying about this policy, none of those reasons felt right and I also believe the policy was not God's will.  I'm happy that changes have been made.

3.  I answered that above.  The baptisms of all children are to be handled on a local level (and approved) now.  That's how it was prior to the policy.

How about you answer my question if you disagree.....What do you see that is different?

It seems like the bishop, if not distressed, is anxious and confused (your words). That is why I asked whether he is dealing with an actual case. Is he?

I think it is important that you cite the reasons for the policy so that I know where you are coming from. I did come into the thread rather late.

It is interesting that you prayed about the policy, then decided the reasons given for it felt wrong. What prompted you (or, what was your reason) to pray about the policy in the first place?

The ecclesiastical level where baptisms are approved is but a small, quantifiable aspect of protocol. On another and qualitative level, I would say that before the policy, some local leaders did not think of some of the special issues addressed as the reasons for the policy, and that they generally have a heightened awareness in light of societal changes in relation to the fundamental covenants of the Church.

But I would still like to hear your version of the reasons for the policy, and why you felt they were wrong other than extrapolating from your prayer about the policy.

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think you've made a case for God having compassion and choosing not to punish his people.

But I still can't believe that the original policy was the will of God.  The Spirit testifies otherwise to me and I have to go with the Holy Ghost.

So, I can believe that God may be inspiring the prophet to rescind the policy now but I also don't think that prophet needs that inspiration either.  I think the prophet can exercise his compassion and judgment to rescind it in accord with the apostles.

Yes, I've made that case, and also much more than that. But it seems that doesn't serve your purposes in light of what you portray as your testimony. Which means this discussion is really not about policy, but about personal, spiritual inclinations and conclusions about how God works. When the bottom line is testimony, any rational argument gets put aside for one's non-rational, personal compass as the preferred, ultimate perspective.

Edited September 26, 2019 by CV75

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It seems like the bishop, if not distressed, is anxious and confused (your words). 

No, you've misunderstood what I was stating.  He's not distressed about it, he just wants some clarification between what is currently in the handbook and what has now been changed.  He's hoping there will be an update in writing or an edit to the handbook regarding this.  I'd imagine all local leaders would like an update, since they are once again to handle these baptisms.

 

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It is interesting that you prayed about the policy, then decided the reasons given for it felt wrong. What prompted you (or, what was your reason) to pray about the policy in the first place?

What prompted me?  I pray about all teachings.....don't you?

 

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But I would still like to hear your version of the reasons for the policy, and why you felt they were wrong other than extrapolating from your prayer about the policy.

The reasons have been discussed here several times and those are what I am referring to.  Maybe start another thread if you want to derail this one with another discussion on those reasons?

I followed my own inspiration after praying over this policy and I assume you've done the same?  I'm not sure what else you want in response here....

[rockpond]

52 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Just to be clear here: the change was not a change in policy so much as a change in procedures. 

A distinction without a practical difference. 

52 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Before the change: Bishops needed to seek direct and personal approval from the First Presidency each and every time a same sex couple household had children who wanted to be baptized.

That wasn’t the policy.  The policy was that children of custodial same sex parents could not be baptized while under legal age. But I agree that bishops could seek approval for an exception as with every policy. 

52 minutes ago, Ahab said:

 Now, after the change: Bishops no longer need to seek direct and personal approval from the First Presidency each and every time.  They just need to follow the directions that have been given by the First Presidency.

That’s what President Nelson has indicated. 

52 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Not much of a change, if you ask me.  Just less direct and personal correspondence between bishops and the First Presidency.  Bishops are still expected to follow the directions the  First Presidency gives them, though.

It’s a very significant change from a policy perspective:   The handbook currently states that approval for the blessing, baptism, or ordination is ONLY to be requested if the child is of legal age and disavows his/her parents marriage.

A bishop who was following the letter of the policy would have declined to have baptized such a child and would have had no reason to even seek an exception. 

Now, per this year’s statements, the Bishop is permitted to approve such a baptism. 

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I've made that case, and also much more than that. But it seems that doesn't serve your purposes in light of what you portray as your testimony. Which means this discussion is really not about policy, but about personal, spiritual inclinations and conclusions about how God works. When the bottom line is testimony, any rational argument gets put aside for one's non-rational, personal compass as the preferred, ultimate perspective.

The discussion had been about policy, how revelation and the will of God work, and about each of our personal spiritual confirmations of the prophetic process.  All of these are key elements of the five truths taught by President Nelson. 

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That wasn’t the policy.  The policy was that children of custodial same sex parents could not be baptized while under legal age. But I agree that bishops could seek approval for an exception as with every policy. 

Fair point.  I'll restate.  Before the change: Bishops needed to seek direct and personal approval from the First Presidency each and every time a same sex couple household had children under 18 who wanted to be baptized.

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It’s a very significant change from a policy perspective:   The handbook currently states that approval for the blessing, baptism, or ordination is ONLY to be requested if the child is of legal age and disavows his/her parents marriage.

A bishop who was following the letter of the policy would have declined to have baptized such a child and would have had no reason to even seek an exception. 

Now, per this year’s statements, the Bishop is permitted to approve such a baptism. 

Only if the instructions from the First Presidency permit it, and the instructions will be the same instructions the bishops would get from the First Presidency if the bishops corresponded with them personally and directly.

It's still the same policy.  Bishops are still going to be expected to follow counsel from the First Presidency whether they talk to them personally and directly or read the instructions about what they have told them to do.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Fair point.  I'll restate.  Before the change: Bishops needed to seek direct and personal approval from the First Presidency each and every time a same sex couple household had children under 18 who wanted to be baptized.

And I’ll restate again, this is not the policy (as currently published in the handbook).  This only applies for a bishop who is willing to determine that the individuals in front of him represent a reason to go outside of the policy for an exception. 

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Only if the instructions from the First Presidency permit it, and the instructions will be the same instructions the bishops would get from the First Presidency if the bishops corresponded with them personally and directly.

You are speculating here.  Also, bishops don’t correspond “personally and directly” with the First Presidency.  Under the currently published policy, if a bishop decides that an exception is warranted, he would then need to convince the stake president.  The SP would then write to the FP.  Typically an assistant to the FP is the only person who replies.  And that reply goes to the SP and then to the bishop.  

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

It's still the same policy.  Bishops are still going to be expected to follow counsel from the First Presidency whether they talk to them personally and directly or read the instructions about what they have told them to do.

It is not the same policy. If it was, there would not be a need to have issues a press release about the change. 

 

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, you've misunderstood what I was stating.  He's not distressed about it, he just wants some clarification between what is currently in the handbook and what has now been changed.  He's hoping there will be an update in writing or an edit to the handbook regarding this.  I'd imagine all local leaders would like an update, since they are once again to handle these baptisms.

What prompted me?  I pray about all teachings.....don't you?

The reasons have been discussed here several times and those are what I am referring to.  Maybe start another thread if you want to derail this one with another discussion on those reasons?

I followed my own inspiration after praying over this policy and I assume you've done the same?  I'm not sure what else you want in response here....

But I asked if your bishop is currently handling one of "these baptisms."

I pray about everything I do (when I remember to).

I want(ed) to discuss your views on the reasons. It was worthy of discussion before, so I do not see is as a derail now. If you are tired of talking about it, or reluctant, I can go with that. Evidently you have said everything you want to.

I don't consider these threads as proper or effective platforms for testimony-bearing, so once it gets to that as the ultimate explanation of why someone finds something right or wrong, the thinking has clearly been done (in other words, has been set aside).

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The discussion had been about policy, how revelation and the will of God work, and about each of our personal spiritual confirmations of the prophetic process.  All of these are key elements of the five truths taught by President Nelson. 

And then the discussion, for a brief Camelotian minute, started to drill down to insight on those points. Well, enough of that!

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The reasons have been discussed here several times and those are what I am referring to.  Maybe start another thread if you want to derail this one with another discussion on those reasons?

He probably wants you to describe them in your own words as not everyone is interpreting them in the same way.

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

He probably wants you to describe them in your own words as not everyone is interpreting them in the same way.

...and as a lead-in to how that affects an actual case his bishopric might be handling, what prompted him to pray about the policy in the first place, and what has substantively changed (as well as superficially not changed) over the 3-1/2 years. ETA: @ALarson in case you missed this.

Edited September 26, 2019 by CV75

[Ahab]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And I’ll restate again, this is not the policy (as currently published in the handbook).  This only applies for a bishop who is willing to determine that the individuals in front of him represent a reason to go outside of the policy for an exception. 

 Fair point, again.  I'll restate, again.  Before the change: Bishops needed to ask their Stake President to seek approval from the First Presidency each and every time a same sex couple household had children under 18 living with them who wanted to be baptized, even if the parents of the child under 18 and/or the same sex couple gave their permission to have that child baptized.

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It is not the same policy. If it was, there would not be a need to have issues a press release about the change. 

Okay, it's a change in procedures that apply to that policy.  The procedure before the announced changed used to be that bishops were required to seek approval from the First Presidency, through their Stake President, whenever a same sex couple household had children under 18 living with them who wanted to be baptized, even if the parents of the child under 18 and/or the same sex couple gave their permission to have that child baptized.  And even if the child was willing to say they do not approve of the way the same sex couple is living their lives.

Now, according to the the announced change, bishops only need to look at the instructions they receive from the First Presidency to tell them how they should handle those situations with no more need to contact the First Presidency to find out what they want them to do.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

He probably wants you to describe them in your own words as not everyone is interpreting them in the same way.

Ok....

Let's go with the protect the children reason.  

I honestly just did not want this discussion to get sidetracked again into the back and forth regarding personally beliefs or feelings ( which has already taken place ad nauseum (IMO) on that one).

I respect that some feel the policy protected the children (with parents involved in a SSM) and have numerous times, agreed to disagree (civilly and respectfully).  So honestly, I'm not sure why we need to do that again....

Edited September 26, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

...and as a lead-in to how that affects an actual case his bishopric might be handling, what prompted him to pray about the policy in the first place, and what has substantively changed (as well as superficially not changed) over the 3-1/2 years. ETA: @ALarson in case you missed this.

Here is what I posted regarding my discussion last Sunday in our Bishopric meeting:

Quote

 

That's how we feel about it right now as well.  My Bishop thinks it's a mess and very confusing as it stands today (we discussed it on Sunday).  He's hoping for more instruction or information from Salt Lake and is also anxious to see what the printed version (changes) looks like.  So far, it's still the same and conflicts with the press release and devotional.  We will just wait and see, I guess....

ETA:

I don't want to give the impression there is urgency here on this....just a need for clarity for the future.

 

We are not currently "handling" any cases, but would like clarity on what the current policy is for any future cases.  As it stands now the original policy is still in the current handbook (no changes made as of yet....but I do hope it will be edited or rewritten reflecting the changes that our leaders have recently expressed.)  I think that's important so there is more consistency church wide. 

Edited September 26, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

And then the discussion, for a brief Camelotian minute, started to drill down to insight on those points. Well, enough of that!

Is this your attempt to be helpful?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Here is what I posted regarding my discussion last Sunday in our Bishopric meeting:

We are not currently "handling" any cases, but would like clarity on what the current policy is for any future cases.  As it stands now the original policy is still in the current handbook (no changes made as of yet....but I do hope it will be edited or rewritten reflecting the changes that our leaders have recently expressed.)  I think that's important so there is more consistency church wide. 

So with no actionable cases, we are offered a manifestation of ennui.

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Is this your attempt to be helpful?

Just sharing my observation rather than bearing my testimony.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Ok....

Let's go with the protect the children reason.  

I honestly just did not want this discussion to get sidetracked again into the back and forth regarding personally beliefs or feelings ( which has already taken place ad nauseum (IMO) on that one).

I respect that some feel the policy protected the children (with parents involved in a SSM) and have numerous times, agreed to disagree (civilly and respectfully).  So honestly, I'm not sure why we need to do that again....

My question is why you would disagree with this particular (I assume you have more reasons) reason for the policy. I assume you support protecting the children. You may not think the policy was an effective way to do that, and we needn't get into that. Do you really disagree with this being one of the reasons the Church says policy was established?

Which came first, your prayer about the policy or your disagreement with this and/or other reasons given by the Church?

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So with no actionable cases, we are offered a manifestation of ennui.

It’s not hard to understand why members of current bishoprics want to see an updated version of the policy to correctly follow.  It has been a bit confusing to follow and specify the exact changes.  Just for conformity and consistency between different locations and different local leaders, I’d think.

I hope you agree!

Edited September 26, 2019 by JulieM