Jump to content

ALarson

Contributor
  • Content Count

    7,051
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ALarson

  1. I loved Michael Reed's book, and found the history fascinating to read regarding how many have come to really have a strong aversion to wearing a cross (or it's usage in other ways). I know I grew up being taught this and feeling that way about it. I would love to see more of an acceptance now, but I honestly believe it would take the members seeing the leaders wearing it (jewelry, tie tacks, etc) or specifically speaking about accepting it, for this to happen.
  2. I know this meeting (or fireside) was scheduled ahead of time for these two church historians to travel over to Sweden and attend (I don't know what other business they attended to while there). All local leaders were in attendance at this meeting who could be there (Stake Presidents, etc.) and I believe 25 or so members representing (iirc) around 600 members who'd formed a group on facebook to discuss issues they were struggling with and had specific questions. I don't know if that was an "ill-conceived idea". I honestly do believe these historians went with good intentions but were maybe not prepared with good answers for these members. If I remember correctly, they had at least some of the questions submitted to them in advance. I'd imagine in hindsight, they may have handled the entire thing in a different manner. It's admirable that FairMormon did try to write up some answers to these member's questions. Your "vow"? I didn't see that, but I agree this needs its own thread if anyone wants to continue discussing it. I've given my opinion on it and won't derail further.
  3. I agree that polygamy can get complicated and it's a large subject to cover. But from what I remember, the answers given (or more the avoidance of giving any answers) were pretty inadequate. Also many of the other questions were pretty basic, IMO and the church historian had traveled all the way to Sweden to specifically meet with these members and help them with answers. After reading the transcript, I was amazed at how poorly these historians did. That's my opinion and you can disagree of course. My impression after reading the transcript, was that they did more avoiding and dodging and spent more time chewing the members out for having doubts and questions than they spent actually addressing their concerns and questions. I'd have to read it again as it's been awhile, but I know that's how I felt at the time.
  4. Except most of the questions asked were pretty basic (regarding BofM translation, the first vision, polygamy, etc.) and iirc, the historians stated that they had the answers (in their brief case), but then did not address many or most of the questions. I'm going from memory here, but that's what I remember from reading the transcript of the meeting back when it took place. To be fair, they were in a bad spot and I think tried to do what they could. But as historians representing the church, they should have addressed the questions and shared the answers they seemed to claim that they brought with them, IMO.
  5. They are awesome....I agree! Glad you're back, Papa 👍😄
  6. They should not discuss it (except with their spouse), so they shouldn't bring it up. If they were directly asked, I can't imagine they should lie about it or deny it. Maybe just say "it's not to be discussed".
  7. The 2nd Anointing (or having your calling and election made sure as some refer to it or the second endowment) was very commonly done in the early days of the church. It was not kept a secret either as it seems to be done today. At one time, I studied the history of it...but at one point I think the church stopped doing them (or at least stopped talking publicly about them). I think members were requesting to have the ordinance performed for them and members may have wondered why some got it done and not others, etc. I honestly don't know if they ever stopped performing the ordinance because it is still performed today (from all appearances and some have even written about their experiences). It's somewhat controversial still (I think) because many don't know about it or don't believe it's still taking place. I have read that almost all mission presidents receiving their 2nd anointing, Patriarchs and many Stake Presidents (don't know for sure of course). I would imagine all of the Apostles have had their's done. I'm not sure how they are selected for this ordinance but maybe others here know. It's a bit silly not to discuss it now because it was something of great importance to Joseph Smith and he wrote and spoke quite a bit about it, iirc (he sometimes referred to it as the "fulness of the priesthood"). We just should not get into particulars or share anything that should not be shared regarding the specific words, ordinance, blessing, etc. But it's not really a secret that it's performed. Here's this:
  8. Thanks Amulek. Actually, I went back and read through everything again too last night. I can see where the misunderstanding came from and I also apologize for saying you were being dishonest. I can see it was an honest mistake. Sometimes we ask a question and know our intent, but when the person being asked the question reads it, they see an entirely different meaning. I believe that's a big part of what happened here. One thing is for sure, we all care about the welfare of the children and youth and no one wants to see any of them ever abused in any way. I know that background checks would definitely not 100% prevent this from happening and I would never claim that. However, I do believe that anything we can do that will even save one child from suffering abuse is worth the cost. I know that problems and issues come along with implementing something like this though too. Anyway....thanks again. I'll work on trying to be better at communicating too. This is an emotional topic for many and any discussion on it can be difficult.
  9. Yes, you explained well why I responded like I did. I still believe it would need to be a more organized effort rather than just one or two leaders (or members) paying for background checks and having the power to choose who they run them on and who they don't within our ward. And, I honestly don't think "that would work". Gotta get off of here for the evening now
  10. Now you're not being honest. I answered "Yes" when you asked me that question: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71749-background-checks/?do=findComment&comment=1209899295 I'm done responding to you on this topic. I know we disagree and I can respect your right to have your own opinion, of course. But I'm not interested in continuing any discussion with you about it. Sorry, but you can't seem to discuss this with someone who has a differing view, without making it personal. I'm not interested in that type of discussion, but I wish you well.
  11. How would you know that? You are sure full of false accusations here. You don't know me and you don't what I have or have not done....but you keep doubting and questioning and accusing. Cut it out.
  12. Yes. This is an issue of utmost importance for me.....for my own reasons. Good grief. This is a discussion and we're talking about options. I have no idea if that would get approved (me paying for doing background checks on members of my ward). I'd imagine approval from higher up would have to take place first (possibly for legal reasons). I serve in the bishopric and I'll approach the Bishop about it in our next meeting together. I tend to believe he will react positively (to background checks), but will also say we would need approval to just start doing them in our ward. But like I said, I would be more than happy to donate toward this if the leaders asked and felt it was important to implement. I honestly believe many would donate to a fund for this. Why are you so hung up on the cost?
  13. No, but I'll take a look. I was just responding and trying to help give some links to information. (I read some about it over on the website I linked to.)
  14. Sorry if I misunderstood. RedHen posted this: You posted this: That's why I posted this: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71749-background-checks/?do=findComment&comment=1209899284 Were you not questioning this? I haven't seen where RedHen posted how long it's been mandated....but I'll look (if that's what you're questioning).
  15. Here's this: https://www.bluecard.qld.gov.au/volunteers/Churchesclubsandassociationsinvolvingchildren.html .Here's more information regarding the Blue Card system: https://www.bluecard.qld.gov.au/about.html
  16. I like how you're thinking and I'd be willing to do something like this. The only thing I can think that would be frowned upon, is that it would look like fund raising (even if for a good cause). I don't know if it would get approved, but it would certainly be for a great cause.
  17. If you are referring to me, then you could not be more wrong. And as I posted, I would be very willing to donate or help pay for background checks for our ward. I'd have no problem helping out in that way regarding this. I'm sure others would too (especially parents and grandparents....but others as well).
  18. I've not claimed that all of them could have been averted with a background check. But if if it saved one child from being abused, I cannot imagine the argument that it would have cost too much is a acceptable explanation. The church has the money, so I have to believe there are other reasons they have not opted to start doing these yet. I cannot imagine any church leader putting that into words as some here have (that it's not worth spending the money). I'd be happy to help pay for any that our ward needed and I'd imagine others would donate specifically for this as well.
  19. Ha! But when it comes to this topic, most are supportive of taking steps to protect the children. It's become a hot topic with all the abuse coming out committed by different religious leader, etc. I guess we will just have to wait and see. But, in the meantime, the church leaders could make them mandatory for anyone who will be working with youth or children.
  20. Excellent. I have to believe we will get there too....the sooner the better, IMO.
  21. Yeah....that would work. Great solution 🙄
  22. It does make sense (they've paid out millions from what I have read over the years). But even it it ended up costing them more, it would be worth it even if it prevented just one innocent victim from being abused. I'm appalled that you'd even attempt to put a dollar sign on the worth of that. I believe there must be other reasons the church leaders have not opted to do this yet and would hope it's not because of money.
  23. Just the cost of one of the past lawsuits that the church has had to settle in the past regarding this issue would pay for a whole lot of background checks. I even one of those could have been prevented with a background check, it's relevant here. So, the argument of cost is not a good one, IMO. What cost would you put on preventing one of your kids or grandkids from being abused if a background check would have caught a perpetrator that may have been called to work closely with them? How much would be too much?
  24. I agree. My son just got into dental school and a background check was required before he could attend. It was not expensive and not difficult to do.
  25. Yes, they were recorded by men. I haven't claimed that everything that comes through men can't possibly be from God. Just the opposite. I stated: "I'm speaking of anything that comes through our leaders who are men. I have mostly had confirmations that what they teach is from God."
×
×
  • Create New...