- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Katzpur wrote:
1. Why would lawyers be required to draft change to the bishop’s handbook?
To make sure the church isn’t liable. Lawsuits.
Katzpur wrote:5. Does anybody know how long the new policy was in the handbook before it was “leaked” that this was the case? I can understand bishops who’d been serving for three or four years being unaware of it, but I would think that every new bishop would have read the handbook from beginning to end immediately after being sustained. There are enough new bishops sustained in the church every week that if the policy had been part of the handbook for more than a couple of weeks, John Dehlin’s services in breaking the news would hardly have been needed.
Well the handbook is close to 200 pages. A bishop wouldn’t need to read all of it, some of it pertains to stake presidents, but it’s not a book I’d expect new bishops to read through in the first few weeks of their calling. It would be a
toughread, like reading an encyclopedia of procedures from beginning to end. Ugh. I see it being used mostly for reference, this situation came up, what do I do? If you never make it to the “What do I do?” phase you never make it to the handbook. It’s been a while but in this case I believe this change, along with any other change to the handbook, was advertised in a separate letter. Something akin to, “This is the new thing we are adding to the handbook…” where the new contents of the handbook were also included with the letter.
Katzpur wrote:LookingHard, the “individuals” I was referring to were the lawyers or whoever leaked the information to John Dehlin.
I don’t really see who leaked the new info to JD as being important. If I have my timing right the new policy showed up in the handbook and one of a thousand regular Joes with a calling that grants access to handbook 1 told JD. It wasn’t a “leak” in the sense that it had already made the handbook by the time someone told JD and the handbook is semi-public.
Katzpur wrote:LookingHard, the “individuals” I was referring to were the lawyers or whoever leaked the information to John Dehlin.
I listened tohttp://mormonstories.org/reviewing-2015-with-j-nelson-seawright-john-hamer-jamie-hanis-handy-and-marisa-calderwood/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://mormonstories.org/reviewing-2015-with-j-nelson-seawright-john-hamer-jamie-hanis-handy-and-marisa-calderwood/ I’m actually finding it very helpful to keep in mind that this policy is not something I was ever supposed to find out about. (I’m a girl, so I’ll never serve as bishop, EQP, etc.) When God revealed this new doctrine to President Monson – if that is truly what happened – He did so knowing full well that this information was intended to be off limits to 99+ percent of the Church. And I don’t think God expects me to have a testimony of doctrine I’m not supposed to know about.I don’t believe God expects me to have a testimony of Handbook I any more than He expects me to have a testimony of the sealed portion of the B of M, the lost 116 pages of the D & C, the male portion of the initiatory, the second anointing, any of it. I’m sure it seems like a cop out, but until TSM declares this revelation over the pulpit next April, I’m letting myself off the hook. …Of course, I do wonder why God didn’t think to warn the Q12 that someone was going to leak the manual; He could have easily slipped that bit of info in. Then again, maybe the leak is all part of His plan.
I should add that furthermore, trying to base my testimony on the Church Handbook of Instructions – even the portion I amallowed to read – has never struck me as being a particularly good idea. It can and does change all the time. Basing my testimony on the CHI seems like building a house on a foundation of sand. Joni wrote:I’m actually finding it very helpful to keep in mind that this policy is not something I was ever supposed to find out about. (I’m a girl, so I’ll never serve as bishop, EQP, etc.) When God revealed this new doctrine to President Monson – if that is truly what happened – He did so knowing full well that this information was intended to be off limits to 99+ percent of the Church.
And I don’t think God expects me to have a testimony of doctrine I’m not supposed to know about.I don’t believe God expects me to have a testimony of Handbook I any more than He expects me to have a testimony of the sealed portion of the B of M, the lost 116 pages of the D & C, the male portion of the initiatory, the second anointing, any of it. I’m sure it seems like a cop out, but until TSM declares this revelation over the pulpit next April, I’m letting myself off the hook. Wow! I had never even stopped to consider that. This post alone has given me more peace of mind than anything I’ve heard on the subject in the past two months. Thank you, joni!!!!
Does anyone know if the original wording of the policy in Handbook 1 has been amended since this all blew up? Or is the letter with clarifications (dated Nov 13, 2015) supposed to provide that clarification? https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?lang=eng I can’t imagine why the original wording wouldn’t be changed unless it had already been sent to print, but that is unlikely because of the firestorm that ensued once the policy was changed originally. Why would you not want to amend the original wording of the change? The last I heard, the original wording of the policy change was still there.
I don’t have access to the handbook now, but I seemed to hear that it had not been “changed” to reflect the issue of “only in cases where the gay married parent has the majority custody of the child”. I have listened to this talk a few times and have made some analysis. The opening song is “we thank the o’ God for a prophet”
Elder Nelson starts off talking about how so-called millennials can retake the meaning of the word by being individuals that are prepared for the 2nd coming of JC and the ensuing millennium of peace.
The purpose of the talk seems to be on how to receive answers to prayer with a heavy undercurrent of following church leadership. My notes and my commentary are below.
“Ask inspired questions”
“Some may have questions about why the church does the things it does.”
“HF & JC can answer but it is up to you to qualify for & receive the answers.”
At this point he starts to list how to do that.Spend time in holy places: Temple, Chapel, & Home (can be a “retreat from dark distractions of the world”)
Pray to identify additional changes that might need to be made.
“Plead” for gift of discernment. Live/work to be worthy of that gift so that one may know “exactly what is true and what is not” among confusing issues.
Serve with love.
Spend more time where the spirit can dwell. More time with good friends, on knees in prayer, reading scriptures, doing family history, in the temple….
We sustain 15 men.
They fast, pray, discuss, receive impressions, counsel & share together…. then “watch the Lord move upon the President of the church to proclaim the Lord’s will.”
same with this latest HB change. Met repeatedly in the temple considering countless permutations, fasting/prayer, and sought further direction/inspiration. “Then the Lord inspired his prophet TSM to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord. Each of us felt during that sacred moment a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as apostles to sustain what had been revealed to Pres. TSM. Revelation from the Lord to his servants is a sacred process.”
Step # 4 Follow the Prophets … “Listen with the intent to obey” “The Lord has promised us that he will never allow the prophet to lead us astray” Quote from HBL “You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord Himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory” (D&C 21:6).”
You may not understand whatever declaration of the prophet but you can go to the lord for your own witness about whatever His prophet has proclaimed.
41BC Nephite church prospered but so did secret combinations. Cunning opposition leaders had hidden among the people, difficult to detect. Pride of people increased to the point where they made a mockery of sacred things, denying the power of prophecy and revelation. “So too today, servants of Satan are embedded throughout society. Be careful whose counsel you listen to.”
At the conclusion of the talk he blessed the congregation with several things including, “I bless you to follow the prophets with exactness.”
My take on this is that he sees the pushback that is happening among the membership and especially in the younger generation. The COB might even be flooded with letters from concerned individuals that are worried the church policy may be a mistake. He has an opportunity to speak to a group of the so-called millennials and chooses to address the elephant in the room. He does exactly what was done after polygamy was disavowed and blacks permitted to have the priesthood. He doubles down on revelation and saying that the church “president can never lead us astray.” That phrase about the president was coined after the manifesto came about. Elder Nelson’s description of this revelatory process is very similar to the removal of the ban on blacks and the priesthood with each of the 15 receiving a confirmation witness.
I believe that he was trying to offer comfort and consolation to a confused group by telling them that this was not the work of some middle level bureaucrat or outside legal consultants…this was the revelation of God the Father to TSM. This is God’s will and God’s plan. Please get with the program.
Thank you for that analysis Roy, and I concur with it. I especially believe the conclusion that this is a doubling down, and the stuff about revelation and the prophet not leading astray is an effort to get people in line. With the particular generation it was to address I don’t think it worked. I was visiting our YSA ward today and the subject came up in priesthood – clearly these young people are still very divided on the issue and in fact Pres. Nelson’s declaration that it was a revelation seemed to confuse them even more. There were a couple who said they had found some peace with the idea that this was “only a policy” but the idea that it was a revelation threw them again. DarkJedi wrote:Thank you for that analysis Roy, and I concur with it. I especially believe the conclusion that this is a doubling down, and the stuff about revelation and the prophet not leading astray is an effort to get people in line. With the particular generation it was to address I don’t think it worked. I was visiting our YSA ward today and the subject came up in priesthood – clearly these young people are still very divided on the issue and in fact Pres. Nelson’s declaration that it was a revelation seemed to confuse them even more. There were a couple who said they had found some peace with the idea that this was “only a policy” but the idea that it was a revelation threw them again.
This doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. The issue is whether it is policy or doctrine,notwhether it is policy or revelation. Policies can be established as a result of revelation, even though I don’t think this one was, any more than the one that banned Blacks from holding the priesthood was. No way is this a new doctrine, and I think we have to at least be grateful that it was not presented as one. Policies, at least, have the potential to be changed at some time in the future. Let’s hope it’s sooner rather than later. The issue for me, and at least one of those young adults I talked to, is that I don’t see policy as coming by revelation, Katzpur. Things in the handbook are policy, not scripture, although these policies can be based on doctrine. My young friend expressed this same idea – that he was coming to terms with it being a policy until it was announced it was revelation. For me revelation=scripture=doctrine. For me the issue is not whether this is policy or doctrine (it’s policy), it has become does policy come by revelation and if so is this how policy becomes doctrine? And while Pres. Nelson never did say this was doctrine, he did imply it. Point of view, I suppose. DarkJedi wrote:The issue for me, and at least one of those young adults I talked to, is that I don’t see policy as coming by revelation, Katzpur. Things in the handbook are policy, not scripture, although these policies can be based on doctrine. My young friend expressed this same idea – that he was coming to terms with it being a policy until it was announced it was revelation. For me revelation=scripture=doctrine. For me the issue is not whether this is policy or doctrine (it’s policy), it has become does policy come by revelation and if so is this how policy becomes doctrine? And while Pres. Nelson never did say this was doctrine, he did imply it. Point of view, I suppose.
I hope I made it clear that I don’t see the policy as coming by revelation either. I think the First Presidency and the Twelve acted entirely on their own in establishing this policy.I think there’s a fine line between inspiration and revelation, and I’m not sure we (or the General Authorities) have any foolproof means of discerning between the two. Had President Nelson used the word “inspired,” he might not have gotten the same reaction he did. He clearly wanted people to think that revelation was involved, but I would imagine that most of the brethren don’t make much of a distinction between the two. I suspect that they almost certainly prayed about the issue, and felt good about their decision. Therefore, they’d say they were “inspired” to make it. Elder Nelson wanted to make a point and so he used a stronger word and the said the policy was “revealed” by God. Either way, I don’t think they did what God would have had them do.
I am wondering how much latitude is allowed to disagree publicly with the church about a policy. “I wish the church would bring back the janitors” or “I think it is time to sever the relationship with the BSA” or “I don’t quite feel right about the mall investment” or “I want the church to become financially transparent” etc. etc. etc. But to disagree with revelation is on a different level isn’t it? Even if no official action is taken, would those that disagree with this policy qualify as the “servants of Satan” “hidden among the people” and “embedded throughout society” that Elder Nelson is warning against? Are we of one heart or are we divided? Is that which unites us greater than that which tears us apart?
How much more must happen before we can see reconciliation? As JS once wrote “Come on, dear brother, since the war is past, For friends at first, are friends again at last.”
Good point Katzpur – most members use inspiration and revelation interchangeably. I distinguish between the two and see revelation not only stronger but different from inspiration. In spite of that, if Pres. Nelson had used “inspired” instead of “revelation” I would be in the same place. We do seem to agree that this is neither inspiration nor revelation – hence to me it doesn’t matter which term he used. It occurred to me that declaring the policy revelation has done something else: it moves those who disagree with the policy closer to being apostates. I don’t want to blow it out of proportion or make mountains out of molehills, but I think it’s a serious concern. As I reflect on some of the conversations I have had about the policy here and elsewhere, it is hard to disagree with the policy while not saying the Brethren are wrong. If I do think it’s wrong and they’re wrong (by extension) I meet the latest definition of what apostasy is, especially in light of the policy being declared revelation. It could be just mild paranoia on my part, but I think it’s worth thinking about being careful what we say while not behind the veil of anonymity.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.