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

[california boy]

8 hours ago, alter idem said:

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church and make leaders look cruel and homophobic, and IMO, it worked to some extent, which is why the policy was later rescinded.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'.

Yeah well, when a Church claiming to follow Christ comes out with a policy stating that minor children will be refused baptism and their parents are apostates, which triggers excommunication for those parents, it tends to look pretty bad to most Christians who can not conceive of Christ teaching such a principle.

I know the church wants to wrap this all up in a blanket of love, but honestly, that is very difficult to feel love coming from such a policy.  This is especially difficult to swallow when the Church does not treat other families in the same "loving" way where their lifestyle may very well be in conflict with Church teachings.  

The damage was not caused by those outside the Church.  The damage was done by the leaders of the Church.  A lot of people both within and outside the Church just didn't buy their whole "We love gay families so much we are going to do this little favor for them."

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

I agree.

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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

I prayed about the policy when I read it....I also continued to pray as I heard more regarding it from the leaders.  

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

 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.

No.  Bishops do not “need” to do that.  The 2015 policy requires no such action.  In fact, it’s the opposite: per the policy, what the bishops need to do is decline baptism to the under 18 child.  Anything beyond that would then be an exception to the policy that they could pursue if they felt inclined to do so. 

 

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

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.

There is no such requirement in the 2015 (currently published) policy.  None.  You are just wrong in stating that such a requirement existed.

 

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

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.

This, finally, seems like a fair assumption given what Pres. Nelson said at the devotional.  But we await the publication of such instructions. 

[Ahab]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No.  Bishops do not “need” to do that.  The 2015 policy requires no such action.  In fact, it’s the opposite: per the policy, what the bishops need to do is decline baptism to the under 18 child.  Anything beyond that would then be an exception to the policy that they could pursue if they felt inclined to do so. 

There is no such requirement in the 2015 (currently published) policy.  None.  You are just wrong in stating that such a requirement existed.

Oh, okay.  That would be like going the extra mile or something like that.  So nobody should think bishops are required to do that.

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

This, finally, seems like a fair assumption given what Pres. Nelson said at the devotional.  But we await the publication of such instructions. 

Instructions are required, I presume, then.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Just sharing my observation rather than bearing my testimony.

I've discussed this issue on the policy level, the doctrine level, and my personal testimony.  Not sure what else you are looking for from me.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Oh, okay.  That would be like going the extra mile or something like that.  So nobody should think bishops are required to do that.

No, it's not a matter of bishops' willingness to go the extra mile.  Every bishop I have ever worked with has gone the extra mile.  And then another ten!

You have been saying that this change to the policy is not actually a change in the policy (sorry, not sure how else to word that sentence).  But, in your explanation of the policy, you kept incorrectly summarizing the actual 2015 policy.  So, I wanted to be clear that there is nothing in the published policy that suggests, implies, mandates, or requires that bishops seek any sort of baptism approval for the minor child of supportive custodial gay parents.  The policy states that such a child is not to be baptized.  Period.  Full stop.  That's what the policy states.

If a bishop chooses to escalate to his stake president and if the stake president chooses to escalate to the First Presidency than an exception may be granted (actually it seems that it most likely would have been granted).  But that action would be the result of overriding the policy NOT a function of the policy itself.

[truth a la carte]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I've discussed this issue on the policy level, the doctrine level, and my personal testimony.  Not sure what else you are looking for from me.

Thought I'd pop in quickly to say that I have appreciated your comments and agree. You are definitely not alone in this. My conclusions came more slowly than yours did, but the outcome was the same. And yes, I am also a regularly-attending, tithe-paying member who holds tons of callings and devotes a lot of time to the faith. This issue is concerning to many people, not just those who were already distancing themselves from the church.

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, truth a la carte said:

Thought I'd pop in quickly to say that I have appreciated your comments and agree. You are definitely not alone in this. My conclusions came more slowly than yours did, but the outcome was the same. And yes, I am also a regularly-attending, tithe-paying member who holds tons of callings and devotes a lot of time to the faith. This issue is concerning to many people, not just those who were already distancing themselves from the church.

Thank you. 

[ALarson]

39 minutes ago, truth a la carte said:

Thought I'd pop in quickly to say that I have appreciated your comments and agree. You are definitely not alone in this. My conclusions came more slowly than yours did, but the outcome was the same. And yes, I am also a regularly-attending, tithe-paying member who holds tons of callings and devotes a lot of time to the faith. This issue is concerning to many people, not just those who were already distancing themselves from the church.

Thanks for your post and thoughts....

I serve in a Bishopric and feel as you (and rockpond) do regarding the policy.  I think many on here would be surprised at how many faithful, active members struggled with the original policy (and even after a few alterations), including my own Bishop and Stake President.  So many are relieved that it's been revoked....removed....rescinded....or whatever term one wants to use.

[rockpond]

44 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for your post and thoughts....

I serve in a Bishopric and feel as you (and rockpond) do regarding the policy.  I think many on here would be surprised at how many faithful, active members struggled with the original policy (and even after a few alterations), including my own Bishop and Stake President.  So many are relieved that it's been revoked....removed....rescinded....or whatever term one wants to use.

I'll add that I think the significant number of members who either struggled with this policy or disagreed with it is evident by...

... Elder Christofferson's November 2015 interview attempting to explain the rationale behind the policy.

... President Nelson's January 2016 YSA devotional in which he explained the origins of the policy (even though many are now trying to distance the policy from that explanation).

... The reversal announced in April 2019.

... President Nelson's defense of both the policy and the reversal in the September 2019 BYU devotional.

 

[SettingDogStar]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'll add that I think the significant number of members who either struggled with this policy or disagreed with it is evident by...

... Elder Christofferson's November 2015 interview attempting to explain the rationale behind the policy.

... President Nelson's January 2016 YSA devotional in which he explained the origins of the policy (even though many are now trying to distance the policy from that explanation).

... The reversal announced in April 2019.

... President Nelson's defense of both the policy and the reversal in the September 2019 BYU devotional.

 

Exactly. The fact that so much had to go into either explaining it or reversing it shows there must have been a lot of issues. Revelation or not, it definitely caused friction (the opposite of what it was apparently made for). 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I think many on here would be surprised at how many faithful, active members struggled with the original policy (and even after a few alterations), including my own Bishop and Stake President.

I'm not so much surprised, but from my vantage point, this appears an almost exclusively American phenomenon. I've been a member of a ward council or the stake presidency the entire time, and not a single person that I'm aware has so much as even raised the matter, pro, con or otherwise. Like so many other Church directives that seem to be responses to American developments, this is a non-issue for our faithful Saints here.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm not so much surprised, but from my vantage point, this appears an almost exclusively American phenomenon. I've been a member of a ward council or the stake presidency the entire time, and not a single person that I'm aware has so much as even raised the matter, pro, con or otherwise.

That is interesting, Hamba....I don't doubt your word or experience and also wonder why that would be the case.  Did no one even mention the policy?  (Or just no one expressed an opinion on it?)

Edited September 27, 2019 by ALarson

[Hamba Tuhan]

37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Did no one even mention the policy?  (Or just no one expressed an opinion on it?)

I've literally never heard anyone in our stake even mention the policy. I wasn't joking when I wrote that it's a non-issue for us here. It would be exactly like when some headline-grabbing immigration debate in the US causes the Church to issue a statement. No one here pays attention to those either.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[let’s roll]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't see what it is you feel needs to be reconciled.  What is it that God might need to do with respect to the issue of homosexuality and what secret would He first need to reveal?

It wasn’t a trick question and I view your response as a logical reconciliation.  If you don’t believe God has done, or needs to do, anything with respect to the issue then it follows that He would have no need to reveal anything to His prophets regarding the matter.  That was, after all, one of the possibilities I set out when I posed the question to you.  I appreciate your reply.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, JulieM said:

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!

I think handbooks and policies are very helpful. I have a little trouble with going as far as their ensuring "conformity and consistency" since I think that is a more appropriate purpose for doctrine. Also, members and their leaders need room to "breathe" -- receive guidance on the application of policies by their Gift of the Holy Ghost for individual circumstances and situations and for local accommodation.

Think the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve use the keys of revelation, judgement and discipline in conjunction with the Gift of the Holy Ghost to establish conformity and consistency of doctrine, and the conformity and consistency of policy to that doctrine. From there, the policies must be applied in wisdom and in order by those local leaders who have the delegated keys to do so, and with the guidance of the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Members whose needs are addressed by policy have their local leaders to turn to when situations, questions and problems arise in relation to Church and ordinance administration.

I don't think a bishop that is hearing a parent's request to baptize their child relies on the handbook alone. Life can be a bit confusing and escapes specific rules for each circumstance. That is a blessing of having the Gift of the Holy Ghost and in the case of a bishop, the necessary keys.

Having said all that, it is not hard to understand why people want to see an updated handbook, and there are many reasons and motives for someone wanting that. I would ask (of myself) whether the Holy Ghost is prompting or sustaining that expectation, and how much of a practical deal it is in my life, discipleship and ministering.

Edited September 27, 2019 by CV75

[CV75]

14 hours ago, ALarson said:

I agree.

I prayed about the policy when I read it....I also continued to pray as I heard more regarding it from the leaders.  

Why did you pray about the policy and then about what you heard from Church leaders concerning it? At what point did you find disagreement with the policy or with the reasons given by the Church for the policy?

[CV75]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

I've discussed this issue on the policy level, the doctrine level, and my personal testimony.  Not sure what else you are looking for from me.

My post was to answer your question, not to ask anything more of you (I thought we were done).

But now that you mention it, would you describe your understanding of God's role in policy-making, with examples?

[JulieM]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've literally never heard anyone in our stake even mention the policy. 

Maybe most there aren’t even aware of it?

But I guess you wouldn’t know since no one has even mentioned it!  😊

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My post was to answer your question, not to ask anything more of you (I thought we were done).

But now that you mention it, would you describe your understanding of God's role in policy-making, with examples?

I don't know that God is involved in policy making.  I don't have any examples.

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'll add that I think the significant number of members who either struggled with this policy or disagreed with it is evident by...

... Elder Christofferson's November 2015 interview attempting to explain the rationale behind the policy.

... President Nelson's January 2016 YSA devotional in which he explained the origins of the policy (even though many are now trying to distance the policy from that explanation).

... The reversal announced in April 2019.

... President Nelson's defense of both the policy and the reversal in the September 2019 BYU devotional.

 

Very true.  I'm grateful the reversal has taken place and I'm grateful for good leaders who listen to the members with love and concern for them.  This has been an interesting thing to watch evolve from the beginning and I do look forward to seeing the actual published policy or procedures (if there is even an actual policy after this....my Bishop wondered if it would just be removed?).

[blueglass]

12 hours ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for your post and thoughts....

I serve in a Bishopric and feel as you (and rockpond) do regarding the policy.  I think many on here would be surprised at how many faithful, active members struggled with the original policy (and even after a few alterations), including my own Bishop and Stake President.  So many are relieved that it's been revoked....removed....rescinded....or whatever term one wants to use.

Same here. Our bishop was disturbed by the policy and he requested a blessing from his counselors to support him in his distress over it.  He didn't say anything about this until after he was released a few months ago. 

[blueglass]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm not so much surprised, but from my vantage point, this appears an almost exclusively American phenomenon. I've been a member of a ward council or the stake presidency the entire time, and not a single person that I'm aware has so much as even raised the matter, pro, con or otherwise. Like so many other Church directives that seem to be responses to American developments, this is a non-issue for our faithful Saints here.

Same sex marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005.  You are not aware of any saints in your entire stake who are in support of same-sex marriage, are themselves LGBTQ, or have a sibling, daughter, or family member?  Of the <faithful saints on the rolls do you know why they do not attend church?  5.6% of the general population on a selection of stake with ~4000 saints would indicate 224 people of which likely 60 - 80% are less active,  45 people so with 10 units/stake around 5people/ward attending need special support.  Has your stake surveyed GenerationZ youth 12 - 17, and younger millenials 18 - 32y/o to determine their positioning on these policies? 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2019 by blueglass

[mfbukowski]

On 9/25/2019 at 1:49 PM, rockpond said:

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.

It appears your naivety is showing again

The scriptures repeatedly show that prophets are fallible. I don't know why people don't get this.

No it's probably not what that primary song taught you but it's time to put off childish things.

Edited September 27, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've literally never heard anyone in our stake even mention the policy. I wasn't joking when I wrote that it's a non-issue for us here. It would be exactly like when some headline-grabbing immigration debate in the US causes the Church to issue a statement. No one here pays attention to those either.

Hamba, how many are in your ward or stake even? My BIL & SIL are serving a proselyting mission in Perth, Australia. And she mentioned that their Branch covers an area as large as Utah I believe. With only about 20 something people that show up in their ward. She laughed and mentioned that's less than who came to our monthly family parties. 

So maybe your ward/stake have very few as well?

Edited September 27, 2019 by Tacenda