Jump to content

bluebell

Contributor
  • Content Count

    21,612
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bluebell

  1. We just had a three hour regional leadership training meeting in our stake (only bishops, EQ, RS, YM, YW Presidents, and stake leadership) with Elder Uchtdorf and Elders Peterson, Clayton, and Christiansen of the 70 and the topic was minister/missionary work and calling the church by the correct name. Elder Uchtdorf made the comment that using the full and correct name of the church shouldn't be a big deal and that we should be normal and natural about it, not making it a big deal or apologizing if we slip up but to do our best, and that saying the full name, Church of Christ, restored church, restored church of Jesus Christ, Latter-day Saints, or even just the church (if everyone already knows what church you are talking about) is perfectly acceptable depending on the audience. He focused on the importance of being willing to make the change, the power and blessings that will come as we do, and then not being weird or strident about it. It seemed like a pretty common-sense approach to it.
  2. I got an official communication yesterday that parts of both handbooks had been updated. Was this topic one of the updated sections?
  3. I saw that on Netflix and wondered if it was any good. I'll have to check it out.
  4. He didn’t escape for long.
  5. If you re-read the discussion, I think you'll see that no one is saying that Jeanne. Do you agree that it's smart to be wary of unsubstantiated secondhand accounts of sexual harassment until more information/evidence is provided? That's all that is being said, and that's not amazing, it's mostly just common sense.
  6. I'm not sure how being the father of a ward means someone is more than a volunteer though. Can you explain what you mean? All it means to be a volunteer is that the person freely offered to do the job (or in our case, accept the calling) and isn't paid.
  7. I can't say anything about most callings but I've seen some pretty impressive inspiration and revelation in a couple of callings. I agree that saying there is no inspiration would be the easiest (and require the least from members) but that wouldn't be honest or accurate for all callings.
  8. I had to laugh at the article that said that Murdock was released from being a bishop and called as a High Councilman, a position of broader influence. I would bet money that most of the people in my ward have no idea who our high councilman even is even though he's on the stand every Sunday. I know him because he comes to our Ward Council meetings, but before I was a part of that I wouldn't have had a clue what his name was. And he never speaks in church, except to conduct stake business like asking for sustaining of stake leadership or releasing someone from a stake calling. He definitely does not have more influence than the bishop.
  9. Got it. Just to clarify, Nehor (and myself) were not speaking about possible future events, but what has actually occurred so far. What the victims may do in the future doesn't seem relevant to the point that we were each making, so that's probably where the confusion came from. Thanks for clearing it up.
  10. As the OP you can always request that a thread be closed if you think it's run it's course.
  11. You can't really disagree with the actual definition of the words though. Dehlin heard firsthand accounts but because we are hearing them from Dehlin, we are hearing secondhand accounts. If someone says "this happened to me" that's a firsthand account. If someone says "this person told me that this happened to them" that's a secondhand account. If someone came forward and spoke openly then yes, those would be firsthand accounts, but they haven't yet, so there are no firsthand accounts yet. That might change in the future, but we are talking about the here and now. And I don't think anyone on here has accused Dehlin of anything, have they? All that has been said is that, as of right now, we have secondhand accounts of Murdock's sexual harassment accusations and firsthand accounts of Dehlin's sexual harassment accusations. Like I said before, that could easily change (and I'm guessing probably will, rather quickly) and we could end up with firsthand accounts of both, but as of right now we have no firsthand accounts of Murdock's sexual harassment accusations.
  12. No, we are hearing about them from Dehlin. That means they are secondhand information (they have filtered through two people to get to us--the accuser and Dehlin, and are based on his research, not on his personal experience with Murdock). If we were hearing about them from the actually people who experienced them they would be firsthand. The accusations against Dehlin were from the person invovled, so firsthand. It's not about lying or trustworthiness, it's just the nature of the difference between firsthand and secondhand accounts. What we've got from Dehlin about Murdock right now is hearsay. It could definitely still be true, but right now it's not much more than rumor or gossip because it's not from any of the people actually involved. There's a reason that hearsay isn't admissible in court.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. I was unaware of the sexual misconduct accusations leveled against him (mentioned here), or maybe I had heard it but had forgotten. Such accusations seem to be everywhere in this day and age.
  16. He was asked to remove the personal insults from his post.
  17. If this is sincerely how you feel, they why would you question whether or not you want to stay? If I was in a room full of "passive-aggressive narcs and mother hens" I think I would quickly leave.
  18. Definitely. Does that mean that He always (or even usually) does prevent child abuse (or other evil that people choose to commit)? No. People are (mostly) free to choose to hurt others if they want. Mortality and agency really suck that way.
  19. That's not what I'm asking about though. I agree with the first part, not sure about the second. I think it's likely correct, but what I question is that it's a part of the definition of being fallible. High five on the snarkiness, but it's not really relevant to anything I said. No argument there. Ok. No disagreement. None of this actually answered my question, so I probably didn't ask it very well. You told Smac that the only way he could prove that he actually believed that the leaders were fallible was to provide current examples of Pres. Nelson being wrong. You implied that if he couldn't do that, then that means that he doesn't actually believe the prophet is fallible in application. My question was, is that a fair/reasonable/accurate litmus test for whether or not someone believes the prophet is fallible? Like Clarke said "If people assume the prophet is correct unless strong evidence counter is there, that's not really anything like an infallibility claim." Someone doesn't have to have a list of five things the current prophet has been/is wrong about to show they believe he is fallible.
  20. I know you didn't ask me but if it were me in such a situation, I'd pray about it. We are all entitled to personal revelation for our own lives so that seems like an obvious answer to me, especially considering that the ward leaders would be proclaiming that something is the will of God (marrying will cause a person to become straight) that is not in the standard works or taught by the GAs.
  21. Can we please not derail the thread with this topic? There's always the option to start a new thread if you think the topic warrants it.
  22. Tac, like I said to changed, whether or not callings are inspired isn't what the thread is about so please don't derail the thread with it. We can talk about the accusations against Murdock, that's fine, but let's not indulge in gossip. The idea that the church knew about Murdock having an affair, didn't ever discipline Murdock, and instead called him to be a bishop is laughable, for example, and seems like nothing more than gossip, which is not at all useful in this situation.
×
×
  • Create New...