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

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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

I can see how that would accentuate for you the importance of prophets, seers, and revelators in directing the affairs of the Church.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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 talk to you but it's time to put off childish things.

Your statements here have nothing to do with my post to which you were responding.  You might try reading it again, in context.

And having conversed with me on this topic you already know that I have a firm belief in the fallibility of prophets.

 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I can see how that would accentuate for you the importance of prophets, seers, and revelators in directing the affairs of the Church.

Not sure what you mean by this... do you not feel that it is important for prophets, seers, and revelators to direct the affairs of the Church?

[Ahab]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

I understand what you're saying but I see the facts telling a different story than the one you are presenting.  Even if the handbook doesn't have any instructions at all about bishops contacting the First Presidency if they have any issues with following the handbook instructions, the facts themselves illustrate that bishops were seeking First Presidency approval to have those children baptized, regardless, even if they had to go through their Stake Presidency to try to do it. I referred to bishops doing that as "going the extra mile or something like that" because there was obviously something driving the bishops to desire to get First Presidency approval to baptize those children, and do some other ordinances for them as well, in some cases.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

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? 

 

 

Don't minimize cultural differences.

 

[ALarson]

38 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I understand what you're saying but I see the facts telling a different story than the one you are presenting.  Even if the handbook doesn't have any instructions at all about bishops contacting the First Presidency if they have any issues with following the handbook instructions, the facts themselves illustrate that bishops were seeking First Presidency approval to have those children baptized, regardless, even if they had to go through their Stake Presidency to try to do it. I referred to bishops doing that as "going the extra mile or something like that" because there was obviously something driving the bishops to desire to get First Presidency approval to baptize those children, and do some other ordinances for them as well, in some cases.

I think if you read some of the comments on this thread, you will be able to see what was "driving the bishops" (who even though the policy didn't allow for exceptions, tried to get baptisms approved for children under 18 years of age that this policy applied to).  

I've mentioned that my own Bishop and Stake President struggled with this policy and did not believe it was inspired.  I am also aware of other Bishops in my stake who felt this way about it.

Edited September 27, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Why did you pray about the policy and then about what you heard from Church leaders concerning it?

Because I strive to listen to my leaders and support them....they are good men.  However, they are fallible men and make mistakes.  We all need to pray and receive our own confirmations and inspiration.....at times that may not agree what our leaders do or say.

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

At what point did you find disagreement with the policy or with the reasons given by the Church for the policy?

After I prayed about them.

Edited September 27, 2019 by ALarson

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think if you read the comments on this thread, you will be able to see what was "driving to bishops" who even though the policy didn't allow for exceptions, they tried to get baptisms approved for children under 18 years of age who this policy applied to.  

I've mentioned that my own Bishop and Stake President struggled with this policy and did not believe it was inspired.  I am also aware of other Bishops in my stake who felt this way about it.

Something is off here.  Something is missing from your story.   You are leaving out some details.  In every case when bishops and stake presidents applied to the First Presidency for their approval, the First Presidency gave their approval when certain conditions had been met.  Under those conditions, they never said no.  And that's what they were explaining in this recent policy change announcement which was not so much a change in policy but a change in the procedures that are to be followed from now on.  No longer is there any need to contact the First Presidency if those certain specific conditions have been met.  The bishops can just do what they were already doing with First Presidency approval.

[ALarson]

49 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Something is off here.  Something is missing from your story.   You are leaving out some details.  

What story? 

I'm not sure what you seem to be missing here.  There were no exceptions allowed in the original policy for any child under the age of 18:

Quote

Natural or adopted children living in a same-sex household will only be allowed to be baptized once they are 18, disavow the practice of same-sex cohabitation or marriage, and stop living within the household,

And, even after they turned 18, they could only be baptized with special permission:

Quote

Such baptism would still require the approval of the church's governing First Presidency.

Regarding what you're asking, my opinion is that if a Bishop fully supported the policy, he would have been more inclined to follow it to the letter than to ask for exceptions (not always of course....they may have still desired an exception for a specific case).   Many local leaders appear to have not been supportive of it or did not believe it was an inspired or correct policy.  I think more of them may be the ones asking for exceptions.  But we just don't know....I was just giving my opinion.  I do know that both my Bishop and Stake President had expressed that they would have been ones to ask Salt Lake leaders for an exception because they did not believe the policy was an inspired one.

Edited September 27, 2019 by ALarson

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Because I strive to listen to my leaders and support them....they are good men.  However, they are fallible men and make mistakes.  We all need to pray and receive our own confirmations and inspiration.....at times that may not agree what our leaders do or say.

After I prayed about them.

I'm trying to drill down a bit more than that. Of all the things our fallible leaders do and say, why did the policy draw your attention?

[rockpond]

52 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Something is off here.  Something is missing from your story.   You are leaving out some details.

Something is missing in your posts... accuracy.

52 minutes ago, Ahab said:

In every case when bishops and stake presidents applied to the First Presidency for their approval, the First Presidency gave their approval when certain conditions had been met.

From President Nelson on 9/17/19:  "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."  (bold added by me)

52 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Under those conditions, they never said no.

This is not what President Nelson said.

52 minutes ago, Ahab said:

And that's what they were explaining in this recent policy change announcement which was not so much a change in policy but a change in the procedures that are to be followed from now on.  No longer is there any need to contact the First Presidency if those certain specific conditions have been met.  The bishops can just do what they were already doing with First Presidency approval.

It is a change in policy.  Here is how the FP described it...

From the 4 April 2019 message from the First Presidency:

"These new policies are being sent to priesthood leaders worldwide and will be included in online updates to our Church handbook for leaders. These changes do not represent a shift in Church doctrine related to marriage or the commandments of God in regard to chastity and morality. The doctrine of the plan of salvation and the importance of chastity will not change. These policy changes come after an extended period of counseling with our brethren in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and after fervent, united prayer to understand the will of the Lord on these matters." (bold added by me)

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I understand what you're saying but I see the facts telling a different story than the one you are presenting.  Even if the handbook doesn't have any instructions at all about bishops contacting the First Presidency if they have any issues with following the handbook instructions, the facts themselves illustrate that bishops were seeking First Presidency approval to have those children baptized, regardless, even if they had to go through their Stake Presidency to try to do it. I referred to bishops doing that as "going the extra mile or something like that" because there was obviously something driving the bishops to desire to get First Presidency approval to baptize those children, and do some other ordinances for them as well, in some cases.

Yes, some Bishops obviously did choose to ask their SP seek FP approval to go against the published policy.

How many did this?   Unknown.

How many followed the policy as written?  Unknown.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There were no exceptions allowed in the original policy for any child under the age of 18:

Officially...as in listed in the text.  But we know that is consistent with other policies that allow for unofficial, info spread mostly word of mouth it seems, such as living women receiving multiple sealings.  This is allowed, not that uncommon, but can't find it in writing as far as I have seen.

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Officially...as in listed in the text.  But we know that is consistent with other policies that allow for unofficial, info spread mostly word of mouth it seems, such as living women receiving multiple sealings.  This is allowed, not that uncommon, but can't find it in writing as far as I have seen.

Correct.  I was responding to what Ahab was asking....sorry if it was confusing.

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Something is missing in your posts... accuracy.

From President Nelson on 9/17/19:  "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."  (bold added by me)

Apparently there were some other conditions, other than that one President Nelson mentioned, which had not been met.  Something other than LGBT parents agreeing to teach their their children about—and be supportive of—the covenant of baptism,

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This is not what President Nelson said.

It is a change in policy.  Here is how the FP described it...

From the 4 April 2019 message from the First Presidency:

"These new policies are being sent to priesthood leaders worldwide and will be included in online updates to our Church handbook for leaders. These changes do not represent a shift in Church doctrine related to marriage or the commandments of God in regard to chastity and morality. The doctrine of the plan of salvation and the importance of chastity will not change. These policy changes come after an extended period of counseling with our brethren in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and after fervent, united prayer to understand the will of the Lord on these matters." (bold added by me)

Well, okay, I was wrong then.  It happens every once in a while.

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm trying to drill down a bit more than that. Of all the things our fallible leaders do and say, why did the policy draw your attention?

I serve in a leadership calling and I try to be aware of all new policies or procedures.

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I serve in a leadership calling and I try to be aware of all new policies or procedures.

I understand that, but this policy seems to have drawn your interest for prayer and confirmation, which I assume is not the case for every new and revised policy or procedure. My question has to do with why did you seek spiritual confirmation concerning this policy, and how you framed your need, request or question in your prayer to God.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I understand that, but this policy seems to have drawn your interest for prayer and confirmation, which I assume is not the case for every new and revised policy or procedure. 

Your assumption is not correct.  I regularly pray regarding new procedures or changes.

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My question has to do with why did you seek spiritual confirmation concerning this policy, and how you framed your need, request or question in your prayer to God.

I read the policy....prayed.  Then as more information came from our leaders regarding it, I prayed more about it.

I prayed for a confirmation that it was God's desire to follow these new procedures or if the policy was from God.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Not sure what you mean by this... do you not feel that it is important for prophets, seers, and revelators to direct the affairs of the Church?

You indicated earlier that your adjustment of my concept of God’s involvement with how this policy came about diminished the importance of prophets, seers, and revelators in directing the affairs of the Church. I think that God (Jesus, submitting to the Father) designed things so that He would direct the affairs of His Church through prophets, seers, and revelators. I think that everything God is about is important. Since you say you don’t know (but maybe have faith in or hope?) that God is involved in policy making – that is unclear from your posts and you may wish to clarify – I can see why you have a stronger sense of the importance of prophets, seers, and revelators (alone) in directing the affairs of the Church that I do.

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Your assumption is not correct.  I regularly pray regarding new procedures or changes.

I read the policy....prayed.  Then as more information came from our leaders regarding it, I prayed more about it.

I prayed for a confirmation that it was God's desire to follow these new procedures or if the policy was from God.

That gives you an awful lot of policies and procedures to pray about!

What is the difference between a confirmation that it was God's desire to follow these new procedures and a confirmation that the policy was from God?

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What is the difference between a confirmation that it was God's desire to follow these new procedures and a confirmation that the policy was from God?

Probably not much of a difference.  I tend to believe that if I receive a confirmation through prayer that a policy is from God, it would also be His desire that I follow the procedures laid out in that policy.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

You indicated earlier that your adjustment of my concept of God’s involvement with how this policy came about diminished the importance of prophets, seers, and revelators in directing the affairs of the Church. I think that God (Jesus, submitting to the Father) designed things so that He would direct the affairs of His Church through prophets, seers, and revelators. I think that everything God is about is important. Since you say you don’t know (but maybe have faith in or hope?) that God is involved in policy making – that is unclear from your posts and you may wish to clarify – I can see why you have a stronger sense of the importance of prophets, seers, and revelators (alone) in directing the affairs of the Church that I do.

I understood your concept of how this policy came about (and how it was reversed) was that God allowed the FP and Q12 to implement a policy that they felt was best for the Church and the upholding of doctrine.  He then gave them the space to see how it worked out and make adjustments based on what happened.  I refer to this as the trial and error approach.  A lot of discussion has happened and if I am misrepresenting you it is not intentional.

I'll clarify my statement...

The First Presidency are charged with directing the affairs of the church.  I sustain them in that calling.  I also place my faith in their ability to reveal, see, and prophecy with respect to directing the affairs of the church.

You asked specifically about God's role in the making of policy (within what I view as the broader umbrella of directing the affairs of the church).  My reply was meant to indicate that while I believe that God could be involved in directing church policies, through or prophets/seers/revelators, I have not seen evidence that He is.  Rather, it seems to me that He lets them use their best judgment to make such decisions.

In the case of the Nov 2015 policy, what they came up with was something that protected the legal interests of the Church but did not, in my opinion, align well with all the principles of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.  I believe that the FP came to that same conclusion and that's why the policy has now been reversed.  (What will happen with the published version in the handbook is still a big question mark.)

[CV75]

43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I understood your concept of how this policy came about (and how it was reversed) was that God allowed the FP and Q12 to implement a policy that they felt was best for the Church and the upholding of doctrine.  He then gave them the space to see how it worked out and make adjustments based on what happened.  I refer to this as the trial and error approach.  A lot of discussion has happened and if I am misrepresenting you it is not intentional.

I'll clarify my statement...

The First Presidency are charged with directing the affairs of the church.  I sustain them in that calling.  I also place my faith in their ability to reveal, see, and prophecy with respect to directing the affairs of the church.

You asked specifically about God's role in the making of policy (within what I view as the broader umbrella of directing the affairs of the church).  My reply was meant to indicate that while I believe that God could be involved in directing church policies, through or prophets/seers/revelators, I have not seen evidence that He is.  Rather, it seems to me that He lets them use their best judgment to make such decisions.

In the case of the Nov 2015 policy, what they came up with was something that protected the legal interests of the Church but did not, in my opinion, align well with all the principles of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.  I believe that the FP came to that same conclusion and that's why the policy has now been reversed.  (What will happen with the published version in the handbook is still a big question mark.)

Yes, if you would like to review my concept as I described it*, I think you would see that you took away something quite different.

Aside from that, I think, as President Oaks once described (April 2014 General Conference), that: “The divine nature of the limitations put upon the exercise of priesthood keys explains an essential contrast between decisions on matters of Church administration and decisions affecting the priesthood. The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting Church policies and procedures—matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service,” but are not free to alter divinely decreed patterns affecting the exercise of priesthood keys, which is entailed in baptismal approval and performance.

Here we have a policy requiring the exercise of priesthood keys (not building locations and missionary ages), so I think it falls under God’s purview. “Ultimately, all keys of the priesthood are held by the Lord Jesus Christ, whose priesthood it is. He is the one who determines what keys are delegated to mortals and how those keys will be used.” Where those who have the keys have described the revelation involved with the policy along the way (i.e. how the keys will be used for baptizing children of same-sex couples), and that we have so many precedents in scripture where God has taken a step-wise and testing approach with His people, I find this to be a case where the Lord is behind the policy and its changes.

*

“He acts, waits and sees, and goes to the next step. Some may see that as omniscient and others not. …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’.

“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.

“…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.”

Edited September 27, 2019 by CV75

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Probably not much of a difference.  I tend to believe that if I receive a confirmation through prayer that a policy is from God, it would also be His desire that I follow the procedures laid out in that policy.

I understand you did not have occasion to decide whether to follow the procedures, that your bishopric had no experience with a same-sex couple requesting baptism for their child.

I have found that praying about something one is not going (or lacks the keys) to do anything about is not consistent with the Lord's program.

Edited September 27, 2019 by CV75

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I have found that praying about something one is not going (or lacks the keys) to do anything about is not consistent with the Lord's program.

That's not what took place.....you completely misrepresented what I honestly shared with you regarding how I prayed about this policy.  I never went to the Lord stating I had decided not to follow the policy. 

It's difficult to want to have an honest discussion with you, when you turn around and twist what I shared into something that isn't true.

And all church members should pray about this (and other policies and teachings).  One does not need to hold specific keys to do so.