Reaction to change

[Vort]

By nature, all people are conservative in that they get some level of comfort with how things are and are loath to change. This is true for the good, as when a man prefers to preserve a relationship with his wife rather than leave her, despite unpleasant elements of friction, and also for the bad, as when a woman refuses to leave her abusive boyfriend because the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. But when we trust the source of change, this should be less of an issue. When we claim to believe the source of change is the Lord, this should not be an issue at all.

I understand those who feel at loose ends based on the changes to Church procedure these past ten or so months. I understand questions and feelings of doubt; I am not too proud to admit I've felt them myself. But do we or do we not believe that this is Christ's Church? Do we or do we not sustain Elder Nelson as the prophet and president of God's kingdom on earth?

I believe these changes, including the most recent announcement about young men receiving the Priesthood at an earlier age, are inspired by Christ, and I choose to act and react based on that belief. Moreover, even if I thought that these changes were "only" the efforts of the First Presidency "trying out" some new ideas, that would not change my underlying conviction. I choose to sustain the members of the First Presidency, and thus I will treat their policy changes as if they came from the Lord himself. Because effectively, by the duties of the position which those men hold, the changes in effect have come from Jesus Christ. "Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

In my firm opinion, the proper response to such an announcement is never to say, "That can't be right." The proper response in every case is to accept and move forward, championing the change. For heaven's sake, we're not talking about pulling our handcarts to Jackson County or reinstating polygamy. If we are unable to sustain our leaders with full purpose of heart when they announce relatively trivial changes in operational practices like home teaching or Priesthood ordination age, how will we possibly survive the maelstroms that come with the real, important, deep changes that surely lie ahead?

[anatess2]

Most people have no problem with change if the change has an understood purpose.  Changing for the sake of changing (without purpose) and changing for a disagreeable purpose will encounter max resistance.

This is where I am with these changes.  I have no problem with changing.  I have a major problem about not understanding one bit what God's purpose is for the change.  I haven't gotten answers to my prayers for the change when new ones come along throwing more confusion into the mix.  It has made me very resistant.

"Accept and move forward" is not a good idea in my opinion.  It grows a big tree with very weak roots.  But I do have a firm testimony that God leads this Church, therefore, I continue to persevere to find the answers to my questions on purpose.

Edited December 14, 2018 by anatess2

[Traveler]

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

By nature, all people are conservative in that they get some level of comfort with how things are and are loath to change. This is true for the good, as when a man prefers to preserve a relationship with his wife rather than leave her, despite unpleasant elements of friction, and also for the bad, as when a woman refuses to leave her abusive boyfriend because the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. But when we trust the source of change, this should be less of an issue. When we claim to believe the source of change is the Lord, this should not be an issue at all.

I understand those who feel at loose ends based on the changes to Church procedure these past ten or so months. I understand questions and feelings of doubt; I am not too proud to admit I've felt them myself. But do we or do we not believe that this is Christ's Church? Do we or do we not sustain Elder Nelson as the prophet and president of God's kingdom on earth?

I believe these changes, including the most recent announcement about young men receiving the Priesthood at an earlier age, are inspired by Christ, and I choose to act and react based on that belief. Moreover, even if I thought that these changes were "only" the efforts of the First Presidency "trying out" some new ideas, that would not change my underlying conviction. I choose to sustain the members of the First Presidency, and thus I will treat their policy changes as if they came from the Lord himself. Because effectively, by the duties of the position which those men hold, the changes in effect have come from Jesus Christ. "Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

In my firm opinion, the proper response to such an announcement is never to say, "That can't be right." The proper response in every case is to accept and move forward, championing the change. For heaven's sake, we're not talking about pulling our handcarts to Jackson County or reinstating polygamy. If we are unable to sustain our leaders with full purpose of heart when they announce relatively trivial changes in operational practices like home teaching or Priesthood ordination age, how will we possibly survive the maelstroms that come with the real, important, deep changes that surely lie ahead?

My brother (very smart guy) likes to point out that the only constant in this universe is change.  One great lesson in life is the more one resists change the more they will have to change just to try to stay in the same place resisting changes.  I think that Elder Uchtdorf gave a great talk about this concerning navigating an airplane and staying on course.   Many years ago I help develop navigation software for the curse missile.  Many times per second we would look at changes and determine any deviation and make little corrections to compensate in the course.  I realized this has an application in life; in that the more we assess our progress and make changes the easier it is to make the changes - but when we wait until it is necessary to change before thinking of changing then the change is both more drastic and difficult.

 

The Traveler

[mikbone]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Many years ago I help develop navigation software for the curse missile.  

The Traveler

This is good information.  I’ll try to keep my responses more civil in the future. 😬

Edited December 14, 2018 by mikbone

[Vort]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

"Accept and move forward" is not a good idea in my opinion.  It grows a big tree with very weak roots.  But I do have a firm testimony that God leads this Church, therefore, I continue to persevere to find the answers to my questions on purpose.

What makes you think "accept and move forward" means "don't bother gaining a testimony"?

[Midwest LDS]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

By nature, all people are conservative in that they get some level of comfort with how things are and are loath to change. This is true for the good, as when a man prefers to preserve a relationship with his wife rather than leave her, despite unpleasant elements of friction, and also for the bad, as when a woman refuses to leave her abusive boyfriend because the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. But when we trust the source of change, this should be less of an issue. When we claim to believe the source of change is the Lord, this should not be an issue at all.

I understand those who feel at loose ends based on the changes to Church procedure these past ten or so months. I understand questions and feelings of doubt; I am not too proud to admit I've felt them myself. But do we or do we not believe that this is Christ's Church? Do we or do we not sustain Elder Nelson as the prophet and president of God's kingdom on earth?

I believe these changes, including the most recent announcement about young men receiving the Priesthood at an earlier age, are inspired by Christ, and I choose to act and react based on that belief. Moreover, even if I thought that these changes were "only" the efforts of the First Presidency "trying out" some new ideas, that would not change my underlying conviction. I choose to sustain the members of the First Presidency, and thus I will treat their policy changes as if they came from the Lord himself. Because effectively, by the duties of the position which those men hold, the changes in effect have come from Jesus Christ. "Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

In my firm opinion, the proper response to such an announcement is never to say, "That can't be right." The proper response in every case is to accept and move forward, championing the change. For heaven's sake, we're not talking about pulling our handcarts to Jackson County or reinstating polygamy. If we are unable to sustain our leaders with full purpose of heart when they announce relatively trivial changes in operational practices like home teaching or Priesthood ordination age, how will we possibly survive the maelstroms that come with the real, important, deep changes that surely lie ahead?

I agree wholeheartedly. While I don't criticize anyone for their struggles, to me it's always been enough to know that a change comes from the First Presidency to feel at peace about it. President Woodruff promised in the name of God that

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

I've received revelation that President Nelson is God's prophet on the Earth. To me that means I don't need to be concerned with the direction the church is heading, because God himself is at the helm. That is enough for me.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Midwest LDS

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Midwest LDS said:

I've received revelation that President Nelson is God's prophet on the Earth. To me that means I don't need to be concerned with the direction the church is heading, because God himself is at the helm. That is enough for me.

There is a good reason that President Nelson asked us eleven months ago to pray for a confirmation of his prophetic calling.

[Midwest LDS]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

There is a good reason that President Nelson asked us eleven months ago to pray for a confirmation of his prophetic calling.

I agree. He knew, at least in part, that the Lord had some big changes in mind for the church and he wanted to make sure our testimonies were strong enough for the days ahead.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Midwest LDS

[anatess2]

19 hours ago, Vort said:

What makes you think "accept and move forward" means "don't bother gaining a testimony"?

What makes you think I interpreted "Accept and move forward" as "Don't bother gaining a testimony?"

[Vort]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

What makes you think I interpreted "Accept and move forward" as "Don't bother gaining a testimony?"

I suppose that's how I interpreted this:

On 12/14/2018 at 10:38 AM, anatess2 said:

"Accept and move forward" is not a good idea in my opinion.  It grows a big tree with very weak roots.  But I do have a firm testimony that God leads this Church, therefore, I continue to persevere to find the answers to my questions on purpose.

If I've misinterpreted, please forgive me and maybe explain what you meant. Consider using smaller words that I might be more likely to understand.

[let’s roll]

I try to take the approach of enthusiastically embracing Prophetic direction without expecting to fully understand God’s purpose in providing that direction before I begin applying/living it.

Thus my prayers regarding such directions are along the lines of,  Dear God as I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically abide by this new counsel and direction,  please prompt me as I do so to see they divine purposes and hand in this. 

My experience has been that the wisdom and purpose of new direction is much more easily seen and understood as it is experienced.

[zil]

35 minutes ago, Vort said:

Consider using smaller words that I might be more likely to understand.

Or at least so he can get good mileage from his reading glasses.

[let’s roll]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

Or at least so he can get good mileage from his reading glasses.

 Where do I send the check for my vision test (and who do I make the check out to)🤓

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree 99.44% with what @Vort says.  I would just take minor issue with a potential reading of his presentation of D&C 1:38.  That verse is *not* saying that the voice of God’s servants is in all cases tantamount to His own voice, word, and will.  It is saying that when God announces His will, it is irrelevant whether He publishes that will directly or via intermediary of some third party.  It still remains our prerogative and responsibility to learn for ourselves that it is indeed God’s will that has been spoken.  (C.f. D&C 68:4:  whatever they say when moved upon by the Holy Spirit shall be the will, mind, and word of the Lord, etc.) 

In response to @anatess2 I would say:  would that humans were consistently that rational and that sincere!  But offering potential reasons for a change often merely creates more grounds for resistance by giving opponents who really just don’t want change in the first place for any reason, to argue that the change will not accomplish (or is an inferior means of accomplishing) the stated goal.  No amount of sound argument will convince many of these critics, and once the door for debate has been opened their tactics may often be more destructive than if the debate had never been permitted to go forward at all.  

Sometimes—not always, perhaps not even often, but sometimes—it becomes necessary for a Parent to say “because I said so!”, leaving the children to reflect on how much they really trust the Parent’s instructions.  

Edited December 15, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

On 12/14/2018 at 12:04 PM, Vort said:

By nature, all people are conservative in that they get some level of comfort with how things are and are loath to change. This is true for the good, as when a man prefers to preserve a relationship with his wife rather than leave her, despite unpleasant elements of friction, and also for the bad, as when a woman refuses to leave her abusive boyfriend because the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. But when we trust the source of change, this should be less of an issue. When we claim to believe the source of change is the Lord, this should not be an issue at all.

I understand those who feel at loose ends based on the changes to Church procedure these past ten or so months. I understand questions and feelings of doubt; I am not too proud to admit I've felt them myself. But do we or do we not believe that this is Christ's Church? Do we or do we not sustain Elder Nelson as the prophet and president of God's kingdom on earth?

I believe these changes, including the most recent announcement about young men receiving the Priesthood at an earlier age, are inspired by Christ, and I choose to act and react based on that belief. Moreover, even if I thought that these changes were "only" the efforts of the First Presidency "trying out" some new ideas, that would not change my underlying conviction. I choose to sustain the members of the First Presidency, and thus I will treat their policy changes as if they came from the Lord himself. Because effectively, by the duties of the position which those men hold, the changes in effect have come from Jesus Christ. "Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

In my firm opinion, the proper response to such an announcement is never to say, "That can't be right." The proper response in every case is to accept and move forward, championing the change. For heaven's sake, we're not talking about pulling our handcarts to Jackson County or reinstating polygamy. If we are unable to sustain our leaders with full purpose of heart when they announce relatively trivial changes in operational practices like home teaching or Priesthood ordination age, how will we possibly survive the maelstroms that come with the real, important, deep changes that surely lie ahead?

I really don't see the big deal with any of these changes.  To me, nothing has changed except for procedures.  No doctrine has changed.  And I don't see much of a change in attitude with anything.

If you're tired of my engineering analogies, don't bother reading further.  But I find that my take on engineering criteria closely mimics my take on a belief system.

As an engineer, I have several levels of "doctrine" (as an analogy).

• CORE: Math doesn't change.
• DOGMA: Fundamental Engineering Principles that are born from Math, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, & Material Science.  There are some basic stuff that is so confirmed that we're never really going to change them except for a slightly different way of looking at them, like modifying the gravitational equation with relativistic considerations.  But these tend not to affect our everyday lives.  Just some engineers involved with space and really high velocities.
• DOCTRINE / CODES: These provide industry wide standards for statistically derived parameters that we can depend on.  These took a while to iron out in the beginning when no one really knew what was what.  But over the years we've gained a better understanding of how the theoretical sciences meet reality.  More years mean more statistics available.  And we now have standards within a reasonable degree of accuracy.  But they continue to change minor things as we go simply because there is no such thing as having "the final answer."  HOWEVER, there are some criteria, equations, variables, and coefficients that have remained the same for over 70+ years.  Little chance that those are going to change without some major event that shifts everyone's way of thinking.  The everyday engineer really has nothing to say about these.  They come from on high.  There is a period of comments from the experienced engineers and industry leaders (which are usually some minor errors and omissions).  But after that period, it is pretty much set in stone.  Once in a LOOOOONNNGGGG while we may have a major change.  This is akin to OD 1, and OD 2.  RARELY does this happen.  But it has happened.  And it happened because... well... you can really say revelation.  Some MAJOR discovery or event happens.  And it changes everything.  We realize that we have to do things differently because we didn't have as much light and knowledge as before.  This causes a HUGE overhaul of applicable codes.  It has happened twice in my lifetime with the codes I tend to use.  The recent flooding is about to generate a third time.  But we're not so sure what will change.
• POLICIES / SPECIFICATIONS / STANDARDS: These don't really matter.  They are matters of preference.  But they have to have some thought because they need to make sense.  They at least need to be within certain limits.  And we all need to be on the same page.  But they can vary from place to place, client to client, company to company, and project to project.  Sometimes they even contradict one another.  Priorities must be decided upon. But any time we come together, we have to have something to say, "We're doing it this way."  Honestly, there are some companies that have requirements that make no sense.  In fact, they seem to cause confusion and are less efficient.  But so what?  We're going it this way to be on the same page.  So we roll our eyes and do it.
• INTERPRETATION /METHODS: When going over all the above items, and we have a project with known design items, we just apply what we know and begin calculations and design work.  This is applied differently for each individual.  And truly, you get 10 engineers on one design, you'll get 12 different methods of doing it.  But when working together, we try to go to the standards to see if there is a particular path that we can all get behind.  But the detailed level of design requires that we attend to custom design issues.  And others simply have to interpret it.

So, all the recent changes don't seem like anything that changes Core / Dogma.  I don't even see anything that will change doctrines.  It seems we're only changing policies and methodology.  Those things change once in a while.  Get used to it.

[anatess2]

On 12/15/2018 at 3:07 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

In response to @anatess2 I would say:  would that humans were consistently that rational and that sincere!  But offering potential reasons for a change often merely creates more grounds for resistance by giving opponents who really just don’t want change in the first place for any reason, to argue that the change will not accomplish (or is an inferior means of accomplishing) the stated goal.  No amount of sound argument will convince many of these critics, and once the door for debate has been opened their tactics may often be more destructive than if the debate had never been permitted to go forward at all.  

Sometimes—not always, perhaps not even often, but sometimes—it becomes necessary for a Parent to say “because I said so!”, leaving the children to reflect on how much they really trust the Parent’s instructions.  

 

On 12/15/2018 at 1:44 PM, Vort said:

I suppose that's how I interpreted this:

If I've misinterpreted, please forgive me and maybe explain what you meant. Consider using smaller words that I might be more likely to understand.

And this is what I meant exactly about my statement on weak roots.

"Because I said so" is an important stage of development as we learn Obedience.  I was just teaching my sons this in our gospel discussion yesterday, prompted by a misbehaved child that made it a challenge for teachers during the Primary  Sacrament Meeting program.  I told my children that Sunbeam children will need very small boundaries such that, a parent should not be asking him, "Would you like to sing with your group..."  That boundary is too big as it allows for the answer, "No" and everything else and then what do you do?  So, you put "No" and everything else you don't want outside of the boundary so it is not a viable option.  So the boundary could be set as, "You either sing with your group or you sit down and be quiet."  Why?  Because I said so.  Small boundaries.  But, that's well and good for 3-year-olds.  Having the same small boundaries for 12-year-olds make for weak children.  

Therefore, "accept and move on" is fine for 3-year-olds.  I  would like to think myself closer to a 12-year-old in gospel Obedience than a 3-year-old.  Therefore, I have a need to understand the Heavenly design of these changes.  I do not believe that these kinds of policy changes (not doctrinal changes) is given as "God says so" by the Prophet.  Blacks and the Priesthood, sure.  But 2 hour Church?  Ordination age?  Etc. etc... I don't think so.  But, I found that the First Presidency has left the reasons to speculation for the moment.  And I refuse to speculate on these important matters as it is just as JAG says - it hurts more than it helps and it has the potential of sending you spiraling to the wrong road.  So this is a difficult thing for me because it is affecting my family directly (I have a son that is going to be ordained a Priest in 3 weeks when he's just barely 15) and I don't have the comfort of understanding Why.  It seems like I have to wait for the puzzle pieces to fit together. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

It seems to me, @anatess2, that if you and your husband feel your son isn’t ready for ordination that it’s certainly your prerogative to delay it?

[Rob Osborn]

23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So this is a difficult thing for me because it is affecting my family directly (I have a son that is going to be ordained a Priest in 3 weeks when he's just barely 15) and I don't have the comfort of understanding Why.  It seems like I have to wait for the puzzle pieces to fit together. 

I've been working with YM for the better part of twenty years. One of the problems that we have in quorums is a lack of unity, especially in the priests quorum. This new policy change will help to strengthen, unify, and prepare the YM better for receiving the Melchizedek PH and entering the world. Having them longer in priests will resolve some of the problems that we are seeing with them falling away from the church, not being converted to the gospel, and being unprepared for serving missions and going into the world.

[anatess2]

17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It seems to me, @anatess2, that if you and your husband feel your son isn’t ready for ordination that it’s certainly your prerogative to delay it?

Yeah... that would be... awkward.  Bishop/Stake Pres:  We're preparing to ordain your son on Jan 20... Parents:  No. 

In the meantime, everybody else in the Teacher's quorum (it is literally the entire Teacher's quorom moving up) gets ordained wondering why my son got left behind. 

But yes, it is what it is.  If my son doesn't think he's ready (which he doesn't feel he is right now), I have assured him and will continue to do so, that he shouldn't feel pressured to move up just because everybody else moved up.

[anatess2]

25 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I've been working with YM for the better part of twenty years. One of the problems that we have in quorums is a lack of unity, especially in the priests quorum. This new policy change will help to strengthen, unify, and prepare the YM better for receiving the Melchizedek PH and entering the world. Having them longer in priests will resolve some of the problems that we are seeing with them falling away from the church, not being converted to the gospel, and being unprepared for serving missions and going into the world.

"Having them longer in priests" doesn't make sense.  There's no extra preparation to having them be Priests for 2 years and 11 extra months (if their bdays was in December) than having them as Priests for only 2 years (if their bdays was in January).  Saying that December birthdays are better prepared to serve missions than January birthdays is not only wrong but harmful to Priests.

Edited December 17, 2018 by anatess2

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

"Having them longer in priests" doesn't make sense.  There's no extra preparation to having them be Priests for 2 years and 11 extra months (if their bdays was in December) than having them as Priests for only 2 years (if their bdays was in January).  Saying that December birthdays are better prepared to serve missions than January birthdays is not only wrong but harmful to Priests.

All else being equal (same amount of birthdays month by month on average throughout the year) we will now have priests 6 months longer. Not only that but knowing that we generally get new priests at the beginning of the year, and a higher percentage of multiple at a time, will help with training and unifying the quorum. Trust me, I've wanted this for a long time, there is only pros to this, no cons.

[anatess2]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

All else being equal (same amount of birthdays month by month on average throughout the year) we will now have priests 6 months longer. Not only that but knowing that we generally get new priests at the beginning of the year, and a higher percentage of multiple at a time, will help with training and unifying the quorum. Trust me, I've wanted this for a long time, there is only pros to this, no cons.

If this is true, then the Prophets would change the Young Men age up to 19 or down to 11, not do those who are unfortunate enough to be born from January to May a disservice.  You are being cruel when you don't intend to be.  You should realize this folly and stop propagating untruths to serve What You Want.

[MarginOfError]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

All else being equal (same amount of birthdays month by month on average throughout the year) we will now have priests 6 months longer. Not only that but knowing that we generally get new priests at the beginning of the year, and a higher percentage of multiple at a time, will help with training and unifying the quorum. Trust me, I've wanted this for a long time, there is only pros to this, no cons.

I wouldn't speak so absolutely.  There may not be any cons for you, but this won't affect everyone similarly.

For instance, we have a group of six girls that are really close (emotionally speaking) in Activity Days right now.  Five of them will move up to young women together in 2020. The sixth will have to wait until 2021 to join them.  There is only a few months difference of age between that last girl's birthday and the youngest girl of the first group.  Under this new guidance, she'll have to wait an entire year before joining her friends, which may result in her becoming something of an outsider.  This could prove to be a negative in her case.  

[MarginOfError]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Yeah... that would be... awkward.  Bishop/Stake Pres:  We're preparing to ordain your son on Jan 20... Parents:  No. 

In the meantime, everybody else in the Teacher's quorum (it is literally the entire Teacher's quorom moving up) gets ordained wondering why my son got left behind. 

But yes, it is what it is.  If my son doesn't think he's ready (which he doesn't feel he is right now), I have assured him and will continue to do so, that he shouldn't feel pressured to move up just because everybody else moved up.

I'm sorry, I can't let this go.  I tried, because it really isn't any of my business, but I just can't.  Forgive me.

The first thing I would say to your son is that he isn't alone in how he feels. He thought he had almost an entire year to go before being ordained a priest, and now he's finding out "oh, we're going to ordain you next week."  Sudden changes are uncomfortable, and it's okay to be uncomfortable.  I'm hearing stories in my own ward and stake, as well as from various internet sources of children and youth who are feeling discomfort with this change.  I believe this discomfort is more prevalent in the youth with fourth quarter birthdays.  So again, it's normal, he's not alone, and he has every right to feel that way.

I'd also tell him it's okay to say no.  

Lastly, I commend you.  You said "If my son doesn't think he's ready." Despite any misgivings you might have about this change, it looks clear that whether or not he becomes a priest is based on how he feels and not on how you feel.  And I think that's the model we should follow in implementing this change.  Listen to what the youth want. 

Ultimately, I suspect in six months we'll look back on this and think, "wow, that really wasn't as big a deal as we felt it was at the time." Kids will continue to mature and progress, and everyone will adjust.  It's just different. And sometimes different takes time to adjust to.

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I'm sorry, I can't let this go.  I tried, because it really isn't any of my business, but I just can't.  Forgive me.

The first thing I would say to your son is that he isn't alone in how he feels.

Yeah, we've talked about this.  But unfortunately, he is alone in our ward.  All his other friends don't care.  They think they're not going to be blessing the sacrament anyway because the Priests are not going anywhere and that's all they care about.  My son (actually both my sons) don't think this way.  They take these things very seriously.

It's my fault, I can admit.  We make these things such big deals in our house.  Like when they were baptized, we spent months preparing them for it and making sure they understand what they're going into and that they're ready to be baptized not just because they're turning 8 but because they are ready to make the covenants.  We talked about their testimony, etc.  We rented an oceanfront condo for a week and had a week-long celebration having their baptisms on the ocean on the first day.  Getting ordained were also big deals... months long preparation, celebration, etc. etc.  This time, we won't get that if he gets ordained according to the Bishop/Stake Pres schedule.  And I'm sure my feelings of unease is seeping through my talks with my son despite my best effort.

Edited December 17, 2018 by anatess2