Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis

rchorse

Members
  • Content count

    71
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

118 Excellent

About rchorse

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Maybe we should just give people, everybody, the benefit of the doubt until they've proven themselves untrustworthy. I try not to assume that everyone I interact with is out to deceive me. My guess is that Elder Holland sometimes gets a little carried away in his enthusiasm for the work and misspeaks. Both the critics and believers on this board exhibit the same behavior. I know I've done the same thing many times; not intentionally lied, but given inaccurate information when speaking off the cuff. I doubt there's a person on the earth who is unaffected by this tendency. When someone does a lot of public speaking and people are parsing his or her words in intricate detail, of course errors will be found. Does that mean everything they ever said is a deliberate deceit? To me, the example in the OP is nothing more than another piece of evidence that Elder Holland is human. I'm not seeing the big deal. No one can speak with 100% accuracy 100% of the time.
  2. Spritual Abuse (Not Unique to LDS)

    Not only were the examples extremely mild, they were more about differing priorities than the abuse described in the article. I could just as easily claim educational abuse if my child were pressured into skipping religious observance in favor of academics by an overzealous educator. Parents get to set family priorities. Just because yours differ doesn't make it abuse. Besides, is there such a thing as mild abuse? My understanding of abuse is that it is by definition not mild.
  3. A General Authority excommunicated?

    As for the criticism that the church violated its own policies by giving information about what the discipline was NOT for, I'll just leave here this bit from Handbook 1, section 6.10.9, which discusses announcing church discipline: Bold mine. There's also quite a bit more in this section about announcing church discipline. Announcing and clarifying the excommunication of a general authority are consistent with the policies of the church as written in Handbook 1. The confidentiality of the disciplinary process has never been absolute, with clear exceptions being authorized for the reasons mentioned above and others given in the handbook. Not to mention that since the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are the ones who determine policies in the first place, it should be clear that they are authorized to make exceptions when they believe or feel inspired that an exception is warranted.
  4. Spritual Abuse (Not Unique to LDS)

    The linked article is very worthwhile and identifies behavior that religious people really should watch out for. The examples in the OP, however, are so mild in comparison to what the article is talking about, that to call them abuse is to abuse the concept of abuse. Not to mention that everything someone doesn't like gets called abuse these days. I find the word to be so overused, that it's hard to take seriously anymore.
  5. Perfect Fallibility

    Of course members of the church want its leaders to be perfect. But most recognize that they are not. I also want my wife to be perfect, but sadly she's not. I want to be a perfect father and husband, but sadly, I am far from being either. Most of the time, I give my wife a pass because I love her. She also gives me a pass most of the time, as well, for which I am grateful. Is there a reason I should feel bad about giving church leaders a pass on what I perceive as a trivial issue because I love the church and believe that its leaders are more often inspired than not? Or to the contrary, is there a quota of mistakes from church leaders that, once exceeded, requires me to disbelieve? Then to be logically consistent, there must be a quota of mistakes from a spouse that, when exceeded, universally requires divorce. Or a quota of mistakes as a parent that mandates loss of parental rights. Or only a certain number of mistakes I am to allow myself before I must commit seppuku. Or maybe it's really that faith is a choice, and it's up to each person to decide for themselves where the line is and when it is crossed in relationships with church, family, self, etc.? Why is it ok to judge someone for choosing to forgive and maintain belief, but not alright to judge someone for deciding the line has been crossed and they no longer believe? I don't think either form of judgment should be encouraged.
  6. What IS God

  7. Reality...and Perception

    I think the examples in the OP (1-4) speak more to the fallibility of memory than any inconsistency in reality. Multiple studies have confirmed how easily memories can be manipulated and even false memories created. Of course, since for each of us our memories are our reality, then I guess you could say reality is pliable. Information on false memories: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143501/ https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news/radcliffe-magazine/investigating-false-memories http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0081246313484236
  8. Reel Infants- Should We Stay or Should We Go?

    That is correct. It states in the handbook that Bishops are never to counsel a member to divorce. I always found it best to help the member talk through all the relevant factors and then counseled them to study it out and take the decision to the Lord in prayer.
  9. Is Polygamy Inherently Sexist?

    This argument seems to ignore 2 Nephi 2:22-23, "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." (bold mine) Lehi at least, seems to believe that Adam and Eve were not capable of procreation prior to the Fall. From a purely mathematical standpoint, I don't see how polygamy can be anything other than an exception to a general rule of monogamous marriages in the Celestial Kingdom. I don't buy into the rationale that women are inherently so much better than men that there won't be enough men to go around in heaven. I think marriage is meant to be monogamous, but God has at times made exceptions. All the scriptures I'm aware of support this view, statements from some prophets and general authorities notwithstanding.
  10. Without having all the facts and the stewardship to use them, I can't say definitively what is or is not appropriate in a particular case. What I can say is that it says in the handbook that consumer debt should not be paid with fast offering funds. It also says that large expenditures should be approved by the stake president and/or presidency of the seventy, depending on the amount. If it gets approved, then I don't see a problem. I can see minor home repairs for the elderly/disabled or something similar being appropriate at times. Regarding your example of the lawn, and a member not wanting to draw attention to their efforts, I don't really it should go through the fast offering fund. If a member wants to give a large amount to a family in need, there's certainly nothing wrong with that, or even with the bishop facilitating it. But the money shouldn't go through the fast offering fund. The member could easily give a cashier's check or money order to the bishop, who could then use that to pay for the supplies. An even better solution would be for the bishop and/or ward council to work together with the member to get everything organized, and then the donor could pay the supplier directly. The end goal is not for the bishop to swoop in and make it all better, but rather for the bishop to use the resources of the church to make it possible for the member to solve his/her own problems.
  11. Those cases would all still be pretty questionable uses of fast offering funds, in my opinion. I was bishop of a ward with a ton of welfare needs. We were always counseled at the stake and regional level not to pay mortgage payments or for home repairs / home improvements. Paying the rent or a mortgage for a month or two is one thing. Paying it for 6 months, a year, or more is just the bishop avoiding the unpleasant task of saying no and truly helping a family become self reliant. Fast offering funds are sacred, and I can not even imagine using the widow's mite to pay off a credit card or put in a yard. In my experience, it's far easier to write a check than to truly help someone. But writing a check isn't always helping. It's often just enabling bad financial behavior. As it states in the handbook, church welfare is there to preserve life, not lifestyle. Member donations would be a different story, as members can do whatever they like with their money.
  12. It's interesting that all the checks are from Davis County, Utah. Hopefully, that says more about the identity/location of the leaker than the nature of the checks. Otherwise, it sounds like the stake presidents and bishops in Davis County need some training. As mfbukowski said, these are really pretty egregious violations of church policy. I can't even imagine the blowback from my stake president had I authorized paying $9k to put in someone's lawn with Fast Offering funds as a bishop. It's pretty hard to see any legitimate reason for that one.
  13. I don't think there's any duty, per se, for those who haven't made covenants to avoid discussing temple attire publicly. Having said that, though, if you know that such discussion is likely to be offensive to those who hold the attire sacred, I find it in poor taste and discourteous to go ahead anyway.
  14. Critics of the church use fear at times, as well, to try to manipulate believers. Fear of being labeled a bigot or closed-minded. Fear of missing out on things. Fear of being repressed or controlled. Fear of all this being wasted effort, because it's not true anyway. Fear of societal shame and ridicule. Fear of being deceived or lied to. And in some extreme cases, fear of loss of employment or invasion of privacy. I'll admit that the church has sometimes used fear, but the critics also need to get off their high horses and recognize that they, as a group, have done the same.
×