Jump to content

Steve-o

Members
  • Content Count

    92
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

83 Excellent

About Steve-o

  • Rank
    Pirate

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

477 profile views
  1. I was. Please don't tell me I was taught in church to pray wrong.
  2. I don't know what to say about this. I guess denial is alive and well in 2019.
  3. This was also one of Chairman Mao's tactics during the cultural revolution.
  4. You thought everyone would agree. Ha!
  5. I've experienced communion in other denominations. In most cases it felt more special than it does in sacrament meeting. I do not know why that is.
  6. I am not sure I understand you. Deciding to record someone after they've said something wrong wouldn't do much good. It would be too late. Is it not more likely that someone in the audience decided to record it from the beginning because they were excited to listen to an apostle and wanted to remember everything that was said? And is it unreasonable to think that someone would record and share the recording because they liked it? Does there have to be a nefarious intention of the recorder or the person who released it? Do we even know if the person who recorded is also the person who released the recording?
  7. You are asking what church should be but different people need it to be different things. Tough question.
  8. Is the purpose of the policy to keep people in their place, far away from church leaders? You're describing a very comfortable cushion between the people of the church and the top leaders of the church. That doesn't sound like a very healthy relationship but you seem to be very much in favor of that kind of separation. I can't understand why. Can you tell me why it is a good thing that average members will never have access to their top leaders?
  9. Are you sure? It seems like the Stake President does both, especially in a case when a person doesn't confess and doesn't agree with the council being held. The Stake President calls the council. The stake president makes the case for why the council is held by making the accusation. Or does he assign someone else to do it? I don't remember. In a case like Sam Youngs the stake president made the accusation of apostasy, convened the council, made the case for apostasy, and then made the judgement. It seems like the stake president wears many hats in a disputed disciplinary council. But whether I'm right or not doesn't matter. What matters is how Sam Young sees it. I think it is reasonable for Sam Young to view the stake president as the opposition. I don't remember if Sam Young made any specific statements about the stake president or how he handled the council so I could be wrong about that too. I just think it opens the potential for misunderstanding because I can understand why someone like Sam Young could have hard feelings against the stake president and also how the stake president could have hard feelings against sam young.
  10. It removes the possibility of misunderstanding. I'm glad that piece of the handbook was posted because it's clear. If you summarized it I would have to wonder how much was accurate and how much was your opinion. Would the church really be upset about posting part of the handbook? I don't think they would try to silence anyone because of copyright. I think they would want people to know.
  11. I agree. In person would be good but I think telling him in person and giving him a letter would be best. Isn't that what they usually do in a disciplinary council? I thought they told the person and then gave them a letter so I thought they would do the same for the appeal. I think it matters who the messenger is. If Sam Young had a conflict or personal disagreement with how the Stake President handled the disciplinary council and appealed the Stake President's decision to the first presidency I don't think the Stake President would be the best person to go back to Sam Young and tell him the appeal was denied. Both Sam Young and the Stake President could behave badly or misinterpret things. It's at least possible when there has been conflict between the two. It's kind of like if I had a dispute with my boss. I could make a complaint to my bosses boss or to human resources. I would expect to hear back from them and it would be weird if they gave the decision about my dispute to my boss to tell me. It feels wrong.
  12. Why would that matter? Do you think the stake clerk would send something contradicting the stake president?
  13. I don't understand. Why did the Stake President make the appeal for Sam Young? Wouldn't Sam Young do that himself? How would something like this work in a court case? I know it's not the same but it's the closest thing I can think of. Would a judge appeal to a higher court to have his own judgement appealed? Or would the person file their own appeal through their attorney? Does anyone know?
×
×
  • Create New...