9/17 Nelson Devotional

Speaking of something less than transparency. The whole POX section was an issue and how it was presented was definitely “spin”.

RMN said “Consider the [POX] related to the advisability of baptism for children LGBT parents” He then says that their concern was to reduce friction between parents and children. That to me seems like a smokescreen. Consider that in order to become baptized under this policy, the now adult children of LGBT parents would have to “specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.” Are you seriously telling me that your concern was and is for the “friction” between parents and children but the only exception listed requires the then adult children to disavow the parents marriage or significant other relationship? RMN knows that there were other more pressing concerns that he is omitting. Why not just tell the truth? (incidentally, Even the Elder Christopherson clarification back in 2015 gave more weight to the recent change in US law towards same sex marriage and the desire of the church to clarify its policy towards SSM, couples, and families. This same policy that RMN is referring to required that those couples be treated as apostates with mandatory disciplinary counsels.)

President RMN continues “in 2015 the policy was made to assist children and their parents in this circumstance. Namely, that children of LGBT parents would not automatically be eligible for baptism at age 8. Exceptions to this policy would require first presidency approval.”

Let’s compare this to the policy found in the handbook.

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing. A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows:

A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

2. The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.

According to this, children living in these circumstances may not be baptized. The only exception listed is to go through a mission or stake president once the child has turned 18 and disavowed SSM.

President RMN continues “We also took note of LGBT parents who sought permission from the first presidency for their children to be baptised. 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.” Was there some other appeals process other than what I quoted above? How would a parent go about appealing to the office of the first presidency? Do they just ignore the words of the policy that state that appeals may be made “only” under the following conditions? I imagine that most church leaders would be highly reluctant to forward an apeal to the first presidency that condtradicted the handbook. When RMN says “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.” is teaching their “children about … the covenant of baptism” and having the child disavow “the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage” synonymous? It sure sounds like these exceptions to the policy were still under age, where they required to submit to the other stated requirement of disavowal or not?

President RMN continues “we recently felt directed to adjust the policy such that the baptism of children of LGBT parents may be authorized by bishops without first presidency approval.”

The policy is not rescinded, it is adjusted. The FP retained authority to baptize children of LGBT parents all along and now that authority is just extended to ward bishops.

Sounds like a heavy dose of PR spin going on. (all underlining are mine for emphasis of particularly interesting word choices)

I respect his view for what it is: his view, based on his personality and life experiences.

I disagree with his view about things being absolute. He isn’t alone in that. Concrete, absolute thinking is all too common. “Everyone can experience ___________,” and, “I promise _____________,” just don’t work universally. I get his view; I just disagree.

Does that mean I think he isn’t a prophet? Not, necessarily, since I have no illusion that anyone sees everything accurately. My definition of prophets is very different than the orthodox view. We all see through a glass darkly, as another apostle said so long ago. He claimed to have seen the Celestial Kingdom (3rd heaven), but he still didn’t understand everything clearly.

President Nelson is who he is, and I still appreciate his willingness to change things. It gives me a degree of hope for more changes in the future.

I think I’ve come to realize I just don’t really care much for Nelson’s version of the gospel. It’s a version where God’s love is conditional, obedience is of supreme importance, and prophets always tell the truth. It’s just not very applicable. Too bad because I really like him as a person, just not the way he interprets and applies the gospel in his own life and subsequently what he presents as the absolute “truth” to members. Other prophets and apostles have presented a better version.

I think I prefer Monson’s interpretation, even though that horrible child policy was under his watch.

Is this correlation mark 2? I can’t tell yet.