Jump to content

Bob Crockett

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,347 Excellent

1 Follower

About Bob Crockett

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,135 profile views
  1. Kevin C's review of Taves, Revelatory Events.

    So sorry. I must be tone deaf. Rather than offend, I'll beat it out of here. BC
  2. Kevin C's review of Taves, Revelatory Events.

    "Paradigm" is a meaningless buzzword, like "narrative." Margaret Barker lacks a real doctorate. Her conclusions conflict with elemental teachings in church manuals about Josiah and the temple. Just two minor observations. I like what Kevin has to say, but that doesn't mean I agree with it all.
  3. Kevin C's review of Taves, Revelatory Events.

    I realize I'm just a dog barking in the manger, and you are highly revered here, and further that I do like your stuff, but can you write any piece without invoking "Margaret Barker" or the word "paradigm"? No personal insults. Disagree with opinions, not the words someone chooses to use. ~Mods
  4. Hey, I applaud this bishop's actions. Maybe not an enthusiastic applause, but certainly I think bishops under the direction of their stake presidents should be able to do anything within reason. The letter of the law (in the handbook) killeth, the spirit giveth life. I remember as a bishop doing weird things, like calling active out-of-wedlock persons (gay and straight), and even a non-member everybody thought was a member, to significant callings, hoping they'd want to repent. Probably wasn't right, but I look back today and see some success. I wouldn't have done it if my stake president told me not to do so, but he didn't know. Our gay members are very unhappy people, in my view. Why not help them to find happiness, because deep down someday they may want to get back in line. I, however, feel more sympathy for the plygs and wish we could try and bring them into the fold.
  5. An Update from Josh and Lolly Weed

    Yes. One I have discussed at length on this board in the past, because he is now dead. He was excommunicated, reinstated and died in good standing as a high councilor in a stake in Hawaii. HIs particular offenses were quite heinous, as they involved the work he was doing for the Church and he abused his position with the youth. His name was Joseph Fielding Smith, but not THE Joseph Fielding Smith. Elder Smith is a great example of somebody who could come within the precepts of the Church. Even though he had to be exposed, and did not willingly come forward with his sins, he is a remarkable example of one who loves Jesus more than his fellow man, so to speak.
  6. An Update from Josh and Lolly Weed

    Pointing out disagreements is not rejection. Asking him for his position doesn't mean that when he gives if, I must agree. Accusing a poster of not reading a post, even though there is a detailed response, is not reasonable.
  7. An Update from Josh and Lolly Weed

    I appreciate all you have written here. Here's my response: 1. You lack standing to criticize the church as to its admission policies. What's next? Are you going to insist upon baptism of 7 year olds? Of persons recently excommunicated? Of persons with mental inability to choose? Of teenagers whose parents object? This so-called November policy objection is just another means to browbeat the church by people who don't care one whit about baptism. 2. It is an affront to religious freedom to say that a Church cannot enter the public marketplace of ideas to express opinions about what is, and what is not, a civil right. What's next? Exclude unions? 3. Regarding reaching out to homosexual members, I think you lack standing to tell the Church how it should minister to its members. What's next? Rant on about the various religions who practice shunning? Basically, you post offends my libertarian nature. As a libertarian, I opposed Prop 8. (But, because my stake president asked me, I flipped my outward views while indicating to all concerned that I did so because of my love for the church.) I oppose restrictions on gay couples and discrimination against them. You, on the other hand, want to impose restrictions upon others. Limit their freedoms, their worship, their thoughts, their teachings on sin, and their political advocacy. In your system, the Church would be required to do things it and most of its members don't want to do; I suppose you would, if you could, use the force of law. Time for you and your friends to live and let live. True, some conservative Christians and Mormons may not like gays. But beating up their religions is not really cool.
  8. An Update from Josh and Lolly Weed

    I think you unnecessarily trivialize the issue. Fundamentally, to me it is a religious freedom issue. Critics and outsiders simply have no standing to tell a church to change its position on what constitutes a sin or what qualifications there are for a member. I think it rather abusive to browbeat the Church over this, knowing that many members trust and follow the church. How would you like it if somebody came on here and continually browbeated the Jews or Muslims for their dress? Or for their views on homosexuality? Or the Catholics for the papal position on abortion? Who are you to criticize them?
  9. An Update from Josh and Lolly Weed

    I think you would be willing to answer the question any hoo. The way I see it, it is a religious freedom issue. You can't agitate against the Church to change its views of homosexuality. It just isn't going to happen, ever. Practicing homosexuals who don't want to adhere ought to find happiness elsewhere, although as I have asserted many times, the Church if full of homosexuals who have changed their lives to conform, just as it is full of other sinners who struggle to comply. I know of two general authorities and a bishop. I was a bishop for almost seven years and could see what was going on. Those that conquered their issues were among the Church's strongest members. As to the policy of exclusion of children of polygamous and married gay couples from the ordinance of baptism, I don't see how you have standing to complain. An elemental core principle of religious freedom is that a religion gets to set the standards of admission.
  10. At one time I read a lot of Freud. Suicide, depression and mental affliction go hand in hand with being homosexual, irrespective of religion. I have a friend, active in the church, married, holds church positions. What he wants to is go into the public restroom down the highway where the casual encounters occur to have sex with a stranger in a men's restroom. That's all he thinks about at times. But he doesn't do it. He is stressed and tempted and probably would like his existence to end. I've read some of James Dobson, "Focus on the Family." He writes of one of his highest ranking executives, who struggled for years with being gay. lost it and begged to come back and was admitted back. I say these things to point out that a large segment of churched society has homosexual desires, knows it is against God's commandments and tries to conform.
  11. An Update from Josh and Lolly Weed

    At this point perhaps you should tell me what the Church should do.
  12. And, so, what should the Church do?
  13. An Update from Josh and Lolly Weed

    Yeah, his post is very problematic. What alternative does his propose? Ignore sin? I wonder if fornicating heteros are driving to suicide because of church teachings.
  14. Climate Change as a Secular Religion

    Your opening proposition is untenable. It isn't a religion, and you have no standing to tell another person what that person should believe. It is a matter of religious freedom, in part. As much as you despise left-wingers and their views of climate change, it does you no credit to demonize them for a false religion. Make fun of their data, yes, like Sky's assertion that a 2017 hurricane is evidence of climate change.
  15. Climate Change as a Secular Religion

    Not even remotely evidence of climate change. It is evidence that 2017 is different than prior years.