Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,158 Excellent


About rockpond

  • Rank
    Mormon Libertarian

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,855 profile views
  1. No. Not at all what I said. I don't support Karger's accusations and I certainly am not arguing "guilty until proven innocent". I think you and I agree that there is no financial malfeasance going on in the church. So, if the church were to provide public disclosure of its financial reports it would only serve to put an end to Karger's charges.
  2. Scrutinizing general conference

    Thanks... I didn't see it. I was aware of the book but didn't know about the TV special -- or that I could still watch it online. I appreciate you sharing this.
  3. Karger is trying to eliminate the Church's tax exempt status. That seems to be a separate issue from whether or not the church should disclose its financial reports. Further, if church finances are being handled appropriately, then releasing financial reports to the public should actually serve to pull the rug out from under Karger's intentions.
  4. Yes, Karger is making threats. And those threats are coming even without any financial disclosure.
  5. Yes and no. From what I've read of it (just started) he is approaching it like a history. He seems to approach each financial decision like a story to be told.
  6. You know what you do with unending, unanswerable questions from critics? Ignore them. The Church already does that and has been doing that for a long time. Whether a financial report is published or not doesn't change that. And, I am a tithe-paying member of the church, not an enemy of it. And I believe that we have a scriptural injunction to share the finances of the church with the members as we did prior to 1960. I am not trying to fabricate controversy.
  7. Scrutinizing general conference

    Yes... that trend combined with Oaks litmus test becomes a problem for the church moving forward. Perhaps that is part of what prompted Oaks talk. Assuming the trend continues, the church will eventually run out of "converted LDS" to fill the leadership positions.
  8. Scrutinizing general conference

    Yes, he offers what God offers to all - a Celestial reward for the obedient. But in this address, Oaks is putting forward the Proclamation as the specific path to follow. It gives a surprisingly detailed pattern (more than is found in scripture) of how straight people can follow God's plan. It doesn't provide that for gay people. And, if you could listen to the talk as an LGBT member you might find yourself thinking - what does this message have for me?
  9. Scrutinizing general conference

    I appreciate your response. What could he have said differently without changing the doctrine he was teaching? To start with, I would have preferred that he not question my conversion and commitment to exaltation. And he could have could have avoided accusing me of following the ways of the world when I am following the dictates of the Spirit, study of scripture, and answers to prayer. Those are just a few lines that could have been removed without changing the doctrine that he was teaching.
  10. Scrutinizing general conference

    Why was his address well-meaning? Because I think he sincerely and faithfully believes in what he is teaching. I don't doubt that he believes he is doing the will of the Lord who he serves with great dedication. What is the misunderstanding? That my position on homosexuality and gay marriage is a result of being persuaded by the ways of the world rather than my understanding of the plan of salvation that is based in decades of study, pondering, and prayer.
  11. Scrutinizing general conference

    Okay.... I'll try. It was hurtful because Oaks questioned my conversion because the whisperings of the Spirit and personal revelation have led me to believe differently than him. He is attempting to create a litmus test for faithful membership. His address attacks the marriages of people I care about. And he attempts to elevate the Proclamation to the status of the Lord's revealed will while failing to offer anything to my LGBT brothers and sisters in the gospel.
  12. Scrutinizing general conference

    1. I keep hearing that marriage is under attack. Who is attacking it? In what way is it under attack? Did they address that in the conference? 2. The Church can keep saying it is anti-gay but words and actions speak the loudest. And the church is a mixed bag. I do acknowledge the good LGBT ministry that our church has done - it is there and I don't want to discount it. But, we seem to alternate between kind outreach and policies/teachings that certainly feel "anti-gay" to our LGBT brothers/sisters and many of their loved ones. p.s. I don't consider Oaks' address to be simply "pro-traditional marriage". He squarely came after gay marriage and those who support it. That puts his talk in the "anti-gay" column regardless of how he'd like to couch it.
  13. Scrutinizing general conference

    I disagree with the premise of the questions as I think it's a gross oversimplification to try to lump members into conservative and liberal/progressive labels. That's why I used quotes when I responded to you with that term. I think it is used to imply, like Oaks did, that members who believe we are wrong on the doctrine of homosexuality in God's plan, are somehow just being swayed by society or culture or politics. And that's not an accurate assessment of everyone (it could be for some but I don't think it is even true for a majority of that population of individuals). I do certainly agree that our system is insulated from activists and "social justice". Nowhere was that more clear than in how long it took us to drop a racist policy so long after the civil rights movement.
  14. Scrutinizing general conference

    It's too tender of an issue for me to open up about it on here with so many who are ready to pick it apart. Nobody needs to believe me.
  15. Scrutinizing general conference

    I believe I've been arguing for many pages on this thread that revelation ought to come from somewhere outside those people in the room. If you've followed my posts, you know that. The argument I was countering is that unanimity = revelation. It sounds like you don't believe that either since you just stated that the source needs to be outside of the room.