Help me understand what the Apostles were thinking!

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

This happened in our stake as well, a group baptism that occurred once a month that covered all child of record baptisms for the entire stake. It was equally unpopular. I wonder if that experiment was more general or area authority driven?

It was area driven. A woman decorated the baptismal room lavishly, and had expensive gifts for her child…other kids felt sad that they had such a basic baptism…so the SP implemented the Stake baptisms to even it out. VERY unpopular. I had to fly my family to a different country in order to hold my daughter’s — that was allowed, but not a dedicated baptism locally…

[Anonymous]

In wards with large numbers of children, a large number of individual baptisms every month are BRUTAL on the people who have to be at all of them. That was the impetus behind the group baptisms. The leadership were concerned, legitimately, about the time demanded of particular members – as well as the discrepancies in the expenses incurred by some compared to others mentioned already.

I was over this change in our stake when I was on the High Council. It was unpopular at first, but I made sure to talk with everyone and explain exactly why we were doing it – including reading a statement from the pulpit in each ward that the SP approved. Eventually, it was accepted – since people understood once they thought about and realized what some people were experiencing.

/Back to the discussion of the original post

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

#5 – President Nelson gets a mic. – To me this is where the policy hit the worst brick wall. In a fireside he proclaims it a revelation. As big as any we’ve had. Now it’s hit the fan. Who knows if it is a revelation or a bad group decision or what.

#5 bugs me the most. When I was a teen and young adult I was taught that only the words of General Conference counted as doctrine. When a prophet or GA spoke in any other capacity it was a suggestion or guidance for that particular area. What they said in a fireside or an interview or wrote in a book were just their thoughts. If you agreed with them – wonderful. If not – no worries you weren’t bound to them. Over and over I was reminded of the Joseph Smith line of “a man is only a prophet when he is acting/speaking as a prophet.” To me that makes Elder Nelson’s moment, mute. However, times have changed. Now every time anyone speaks the group think kicks in and we are off and running.

Well, all I can say that it if really was revelation, it was a revelation that was handled differently than any other revelation has been in the past. When Black men were finally given the priesthood, a press conference was called and the change of policy announced for all to hear. It was added to the Doctrine and Covenants, and it was in every conceivable way made public. It wasn’t leaked, announced by a source outside of the church, followed up by statements made to clarify or justify it, etc. No way do I personally believe it was a revelation. President Nelson might consider it to have been, but all of the indicators point to the fact that it wasn’t.

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

They are also from a different generation. I know that is not an excuse, but it allows me to make room for their anxieties.)

IMO, this really is a huge factor. What do the rest of you think?

[Anonymous]

Katzpur wrote:

mom3 wrote:

They are also from a different generation. I know that is not an excuse, but it allows me to make room for their anxieties.)

IMO, this really is a huge factor. What do the rest of you think?

I can’t help but to equate it to, “Just like the essays on Blacks and the Priesthood say BY was a victim of his time when it comes to his racism, the same can be said of the Q15 now and their any-gay sentiments”. But where that leaves me is feeling that these are not much more that any other men and don’t deserve my unwavering obedience.

[Anonymous]

LH wrote –

Quote:

But where that leaves me is feeling that these are not much more that any other men and don’t deserve my unwavering obedience.

That is the challenge. The fantastic news is you don’t have to have unwavering obedience to them on this one. You are not a Bishop. You aren’t required to take action. You are scott free on this one. Now the rub comes when regular membership interprets what their responsibility is for the policy. Actually they too have none. The policy wasn’t about the general membership seeking out gays and judging them (though many will – Bless Their Hearts). Nor was the policy even directed at the general membership. What we get to deal with is that general membership. And darn it, they get confused. LH – I do get your point.

Katzpur wrote

Quote:

Well, all I can say that it if really was revelation, it was a revelation that was handled differently than any other revelation has been in the past. When Black men were finally given the priesthood, a press conference was called and the change of policy announced for all to hear. It was added to the Doctrine and Covenants, and it was in every conceivable way made public. It wasn’t leaked, announced by a source outside of the church, followed up by statements made to clarify or justify it, etc. No way do I personally believe it was a revelation. President Nelson might consider it to have been, but all of the indicators point to the fact that it wasn’t.

I totally concur with you. That’s why #5 on my list was so damaging. I too remember the Priesthood Ban lift. I can tell you where I was when I heard about it and tons of details beyond it. And this did/doesn’t come up to that at all.

What adds to it, is that the median membership age, does not remember the Priesthood Ban lift. My Relief Society President is younger than me. I was just entering my teens when it happened. My guess is anyone 10 and younger has little recollection of the event. So today, in our Follow The Prophet world, Elder Nelson scooped the story. Made it his own. And the masses took him at his word. There is no reason for them to see otherwise. They weren’t there in the Sacred Grove either and it’s worked out okay. This just falls underneath that.

The double irony, Elder Nelson, himself wasn’t a GA when the Priesthood Ban took place. He wasn’t in the room then. He has heard the stories repeated, but has no personal experience. The comparison between the two just can’t exist. It’s his opinion and I will let him have it. My opinion is different. My bench still has room.

[Anonymous]

Great commentary by mom3!

mom3 wrote:

My guess is anyone 10 and younger has little recollection of the event.

I was 11 at the time that the Priesthood/Temple ban was lifted. I do remember it well, although I didn’t really understand much about it at the time.

Although Elder Nelson declared that the exclusion policy was revelation, I don’t consider it to be so. The policy and the public rationale for the policy given by Elder Christofferson didn’t fit with the God I understand and have hope in. The brethren may feel that they are doing God’s will, but I think they made a big mistake with this policy. The PR interview after the policy came out just felt fake to me. I think there must have been additional reasons for the policy other than the reason that was given in the Christofferson interview – out of love for the children. We can all speculate about what those reasons are.

[Anonymous]

Faithful Skeptic – Thanks for liking my response.

I originally listed the age as 8 and under. Then changed it. It was more to point out the timing in general. My sister was born the year we moved to the block schedule. She has never known church with mid-week primary and separate sacrament meeting from Sunday school. I sometimes have to remind myself she never experienced those things. Timing can make such a difference in how all of us process life.

[Author]

Posts