Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Your repeated insinuations that all priesthood leaders are grooming children for sex predators.
  3. I'd be much more suspect of any of his reported statements if this guy didn't seem to already have issues in his past record and been caught in the act and arrested and charged. So yes, I take all of that into consideration. But I'll wait and see if there's more evidence brought against him from these firsthand witnesses, etc. Until then, I'm still suspect of them....but it's difficult to believe Dehlin would lie about all of these statements, IMO.
  4. What single-word noun is the functional equivalent of “Mormonism” for the Seventh Day Adventists?
  5. One is certainly allowed to disagree and even ignore or defy the Church President on this matter, but doing so does bring one’s loyalty into question. (And let’s not confuse the matter: Slipping up or forgetting from time to time is quite a different thing than utterly refusing to comply.)
  6. This is a problem with the human condition. We assume if enough stories are told there must be some truth in them. It is how the really bad antimormons of the past had some successes. You could discredit and correct bad information after bad information and show the source is quite willing to blatantly lie but if there is enough volume people too often still assume there must be truth in some of it. Liars and conmen use this loophole human reasoning all the time. You drown people in enough untruths and they eventually start to believe some of it while still imagining they are skeptical. I would say that if he lied about one it is more likely he lied about all of them. Add in that he has vested financial interest in at least appearing to have inside information on something like this and yeah.......I have no reason to trust him. There is a reason that in the Book of Mormon lying was a criminal offense and liars are lumped in with murderers and adulterers in all of the scriptural “people going to hell” lists. Liars murder the truth or the facts, which are the primary touchpoint humans have in this existence to relate to each other with.
  7. No, a circular definition is not the same as a simple definition. I agree that we must each seek personal confirmation of counsel received from the prophet. But that is not the same thing as knowing when the prophet is acting as a prophet. You're confounding two principles.
  8. If everyone in the Church said God rejected that, though? It would be impressive to see that many people in agreement but you're right it still wouldn't necessarily mean that God rejects it. God rejects only what God rejects, and God's rejection isn't dependent upon how many people agree with him, or how many don't, either. I don't suppose it would suit your purposes if I told you that God has told me that he abhors abominations and that people of the same sex having sexual relations of a particular kind with each other is an abomination of how they should act with each other, so I see no good reason to tell you that now.
  9. That's why I asked if this could be documented: I still stand by my opinion that this is not true:
  10. You missed the point of the exchange between Miserere Nobis and me. What is the single-word noun, comparable to “Mormonism,” that identifies the culture, practices, beliefs, history, mindset, etc. of the Seventh Day Adventists? I said I can’t think of one. If you can’t come up with one, then my point is made.
  11. I intended to paint with a broader brush than a simple focus on SA but wanted to also leave discussion open to include the reference to the dressing room debacle. The point was to help Bluebells post stay focused. *If I need to clarify, * I do not believe this bishop’s call was inspired, as evidenced by his dangerous proclivities. I also have stated that I believe God is less involved than we seem to need him to be. And if I need to clarify, “human imperfections” was used to include all behaviors like quirks, personality challenges, sins and crimes- for purpose of the conversation. I hope the intent of the thread is now clear.
  12. I never said I believe the reports about Dehlin. They are, as I said, gossip. They seem like more credible gossip to me because they are not “faithful members” confiding in an apostate for some reason. Neither sets of gossip are very credible to me. I just find one set of possibly made up stuff a little more likely then the other. As I said (and you seem to have missed if that attempt to convince was aimed at me) the case against Murdock for this incident is very damning and much more compelling then any of the gossip. The only reason I have to like the guy is he shares a last name with some of my ancestors. Then I reflected and hate the calumny he is adding to the name. As if Macgyver had not already done enough.
  13. It’s absolutely not a question of loyalty and integrity. I’m allowed to disagree with the presidents decision or new policy and still very much support him in his calling. I would still claim to have my integrity and am still loyal to church. On this specific topic I’m trying to do my best, but honestly I forget sometimes and just use Mormon. However, disagreeing or ignoring certain counsel from a leader does not ruin or compromise your immediate trust in a person nor your integrity. I disagree (sometimes strongly) with my wife on certain things but I don’t force her to think my way, and vice versa. Yet I’m promise you I’m just as loyal to her as ever! Just a thought though, don’t want to distract from the point of the OP.
  14. The church saying God rejects it does no mean God rejects it.
  15. I think the accusations are from those involved (first hand) aren't they? (I'm not sure if they are somewhere that we can read....I haven't followed it that closely.) But if some come forward and speak out publicly (in the podcast, etc.), that would be actual "accuser's words". Or are you saying because they all were reported to Dehlin, he may be lying or not accurately reporting their first hand statements? I highly doubt he'd lie about ALL of them....just my opinion. I guess we will just have to wait and see if more come forward with more statements and if there are more charges against Steven Murdock. Either way I would not say that "The incidents about Dehlin being involved in sexual misconduct are much more definitive and substantiated" is true.(at least not right now).
  16. I wonder why this Murdock guy was never opposed when his name was presented for a sustaining vote? or if he was how that all hit the fan and he got sustained anyways
  17. Doesn't D&C 76 answer this? First while everone will confess not everyone will repent. The sons of perdition (who hopefully won't number a lot) suffer. However as people continue to reject (the terrestrial and telestial peoples) there is a kind of suffering. Now how to interpret that isn't clear. I think the typical interpretation is that it's a relative suffering and not the fire and brimstone style of 19th cenutry conservative Protestantism. But clearly the Book of Mormon uses that as a kind of metaphor in places, suggesting a kind of anguish as people look back on their life choices. There's been various attempts to flesh that out, particularly with people making use of NDE claims. However by and large we don't know beyond there being some type of suffering. Honestly not quite sure what you are saying here. Clearly I'm communicating my beliefs about what is real. My beliefs could indeed be wrong, but that seems a trivial and uninteresting point. Certainly I believe that in certain ways sin is its own punishment. But also clearly I believe that not everyone at the time might see that. To use an extreme example a heroin user may really enjoy the experience for quite a while. When I talk about what is real I'm talking about my beliefs about what is a mind-independent state of affairs. i.e. my belief about what is non-subjective That critique doesn't make much sense in terms of Mormon theology. Now there were some like probably Heber C. Kimball who thought becoming like God meant literally doing everything he did. Thus part of development is becoming a Christ on an other world. However that's a pretty out of the mainstream believe and nearly universally rejected. For everyone else Christ suffered so we could be like him without suffering. i.e. becoming like him means having his capacity and virtues not having the same history. Again I can but say that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying one could vote Republican in the 1960's, oppose the Civil Rights Act, while still go out of ones way to sacrifice and serve individual African Americans. If I'm reading you right you seem aghast at that and think one can't be charitable while having those political views. My point of view is that (1) ones political views have insignificant impact on the world in a practical way and (2) one can be wrong about politics yet still in ones engagements with particular individuals deal with them in love and charity. It's of course fine if you disagree with that but I'm rather surprised you find it so inconceivable. To me it's an example of the very process I've critiqued in a few threads - the elevating of the political above the practical. However from my perspective it is very characteristic of this recent era. I don't think we could make a generalized statement and, like you, I'm not even sure how we can compare such things. To your last sentence I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Could you rephrase that? I am saying that being in the spirit with a connection to God is better than not having the spirit and not having that connection to God. That is, I'm saying a connection to God has practical real world benefits to our psychology and behavior. That doesn't seem like a terribly controversial point, but perhaps you are indeed objecting to that. An atheist (not saying you are one) might dismiss it all, but that's simply because they dismiss the very notion of a God one can engage with. A deist or agnostic might believe there's a God but deny he's got any practical influence on our lives. But it seems to me a theist rejects both those positions although they may differ over how God interacts with us. And I'm rejecting that view of charity. I think one can be charitable while having incorrect beliefs. Allow me an example with less cultural baggage. I think my neighbor stole from me. It turns out they didn't but that doesn't affect my incorrect views of them nor my feelings. Yet one day my neighbor is sick. I want to help them so I mow their lawn, take them dinner, and otherwise try to help them. Under your use above that's not charity but is simply being decent. Under my use that's charity even if I am wrong in my views and feelings towards them. The problem with your view is that since it seems we almost always have incorrect views (biases to your term) towards others, we can never be charitable except to those we like. That seems fundamentally problematic on a semantic level of how we use the term.
  18. Except that these statements aren't "first hand." Dehlin has provided only hearsay. Worse, he has only provided anonymous hearsay. Who are "all of these" members, neighbors, coworkers, etc.? How do you know that they are Murdock's neighbors, coworkers, etc.? How many of them are there? How do we gauge their credibility? What have they claimed? What slant/gloss has Dehlin added purveying their hearsay? This seems like a rush to judgment. Perhaps rather then feel obligated to accept or "disregard," we should take a step back and wait for better, more competent evidence? (And that assumes this story is even worth the attention it's getting.) Thanks, -Smac
  19. OK then, back to the OP: [So-and-so sex abusers, --let's assume they were named in the other thread -- are] imperfect. Did the [bishop] know [they] would be [subsequently perpetrating sexual abuse] when he called [them]? Maybe yes, maybe no. Are [sex abusers that hold callings] proof that callings are not made through revelation? No. The follow up post by the OP is the opinion that, sometimes calling sex abusers ("human imperfections" seems to be overly euphemistic here but I'll go with it) is inspired and sometimes it is not. The false implications seem to be a) that inspiration renders infallibility in the call, b) a lack of inspiration is due to the bishop's fallibility, and c) "b" depends on whether the sex abuser abuses someone in his calling.
  20. What outside persons and groups do is up to them, but I would expect professing members of the Church to follow the direction from the president of the Church on this matter. I think it is a question of loyalty and integrity. I haven’t seen an updated edition of the Associated Press Style Book, so I don’t know what the current practice of the AP is with respect to identifying the Church. I do know that the AP typically follows the expressed preference of a news making group with regard to what it is called and that it would be irregular for the AP to ignore such preference. And its member news organizations tend to follow the AP guidelines in style and usage. I say that from some 40 years of professional experience. If, as you imply here, the AP has been compliant up to now, that belies your contention that the expressed preferences are not workable.
  21. Ah now I get it. Back stories- cumbersome at times but very very helpful in understanding. Thank you.
  22. I think the key word in Nehor's post is 'gossip' or unsubstantiated accusations. The unsubstantiated accusations against Dehlin are in the accuser's words and not filtered through a secondary source. The unsubstantiated accusations against Murdock are from secondary sources, not primary sources. I'm guessing that's what Nehor means.
  23. I agree the search engine on the church's website is horrible. My favorite is when you search a quote and they give you an entire conference talk that you get to read, looking for the actual quote. They used to highlight the quote in the talk but apparently that was too useful so it disappeared. You can kind of limit your search to a specific scripture book though. You can't at the beginning of the search but after putting in the term or quote, the results page will give you the breakdown of the different scripture books and how many hits were found in each one. Then you can click on the book you want and just see those results. It shows up at the top of the page. Still annoying though.
  24. I'd have to read what's been stated about Dehlin, but I can't see that it would be "more convincing" than those involved in this case who have first hand accounts of this guy, plus at least one claim filed by an employee (that resulted in him being fired). I'm not saying that Dehlin is innocent....I have no idea. But I honestly can't see disregarding all of these member's, neighbor's, employee's, etc., first hand statements about this man and then 100% believing the same types of statements against Dehlin. I'd weigh them both the same, with some skepticism and needing more evidence. Of course with this guy, he was caught in the act and has had charges filed....so there's much more damning evidence, IMO. I just can't see why you'd call one set of reports "gossip" when you then choose to believe similar reports about Dehlin.
  25. No captioning and few words. I prefer text with no sound when I peruse the net while at my job. I watched the first 2 minutes of it and was not impressed. That video is not something I am interested in.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...