Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scott Lloyd

Temple recommend interview questions

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

When I questioned if that makes non-LDS people unhappy, you respond:

Wait a minute.  What did you say to question if LDS knowing how to be happy is what makes non-LDS people unhappy?  Those weren't the words you used when I responded with that response from me you are now quoting.

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

So now you are saying non-LDS Christians have the way to happiness (which is different than what you said first).

I said something different because you had then asked me a different question, but yes I was saying that non-LDS Christians also have the way to happiness.

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

So then I question: can non-Christians be happy, and you respond:

You are saying in the bold that someone can be Christian without even knowing who Christ is. If they act like a Christian they are a Christian, even if they are, say, a practicing Hindu.

Yes, that is what I was saying.  Anyone who follows their conscience is following the light of Christ, and since it is the light of Christ, that makes following the light of Christ the same as following Christ.  Even if they don't know everything about Christ, or even his real name, and even if they are also called by some other name, like Hindu, or Jewish, or Muslim, or whatever.  Everyone who follows their conscience or the light of Christ is following Christ to the extent that they follow him.  Regardless of whether other people are following him more or less than they are.

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

That was my point. I didn't make it. You said it.

I didn't say non-Christians are Christians.  That's ridiculous.  You said that.  Not me.

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

CFR, good buddy :) 

Your last post to me which I am now responding to.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it’s sad that you have this hardened attitude that one must approve of everything a person does, every choice he makes, before one can be seen as loving and respecting the person. This attitude must be very limiting for you. I sympathize. 

Like you have done repeatedly with Rockpond, you are attributing to me what I have not said.

I find it sad that you can't even congratulate or be happy for a person who is happy. Apparently expressing your disapproval is a higher priority.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Of course I wasn't claiming the exclusive right to "bona fide." I was making a joke, hence the silly emoji.

I was trying to be funny when I said what I said too.  I just don't usually tell people that I am trying to be funny when I am trying because I would rather them just sense my humor rather than me telling them that I am trying to be funny.

14 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

But my main point was that I am Catholic because God told me to be and that I experienced a miracle through my conversion, too.

Good for you. There is a lot more for you to learn and I think you're in a pretty good place where you can learn some more truth now.  God is here, too, don't cha know.  Not just in your church and not just in our church and not just here on this website.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But you act as if a good gesture outweighs or at least evens out a bad gesture.

If those parents do a nice thing for their child (which is only the human thing to do) yet disown them from their will, refuse to allow them to visit at Christmas or any number of awful, rude things, does it matter much that they brought you dinner one night? There certainly isn't respect there. Love is debatable.

You claimed to have read my post yet you are still falsely ascribing attitudes and views to me. I never said anything about disowning someone from a will. I never said anything like refusing to allow them to visit at Christmas. I said just the opposite, in fact. One of the items on my list was inviting their involvement in family gatherings and activities. Another was remembering them at Christmas with cards and/or gifts. 
 

You are creating straw men and, by implication, bearing false witness. Stop it. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Like you have done repeatedly with Rockpond, you are attributing to me what I have not said.

I find it sad that you can't even congratulate or be happy for a person who is happy. Apparently expressing your disapproval is a higher priority.

In essence, that is precisely what you have said. You have set capitulation on one’s moral views as a requirement for eligibility to make gestures of love and respect in ways that don’t entail implied approval of the thing one disapproves of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

7. Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

7. Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I always got a chuckle out of this question when posed to me.  How do you live in this world and not find yourself in some way supporting, affiliating with and also agreeing with a group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary...blah blah...I mean since the US has allowed same sex marriages, members in the US are in some way supporting a group whose teachings or practices are contrary.  Yes, particularly in my latter years in the Church I got a chuckle about this question and the bishop and SP gave me a pass anyway.  

The new wording helps clear that up, for sure.  

I have to say, at least Scott is staying consistent to what the question says.  I know there are people who'll see this question and think its okay to go and support a same sex marriage, but doing so clearly is in violation of this question.

The bishop of this ward area I'm in, recently had his daughter married to another woman.  He and his wife clearly support practices contrary to that of the Church.  Don't get me wrong.  That's great.  I really like to see members do their own thing and not feel compelled to do as the church directs in all things.  I'd love to see more members oppose the leadership.  

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I didn't say non-Christians are Christians.  That's ridiculous.  You said that.  Not me.

Here are your words:

20 hours ago, Ahab said:

But it doesn't take much to be a Christian, at least a little bit.  People don't even necessarily need to know his real name.  All it takes is a desire to do good and follow those promptings that come from him. Following their own conscience, basically.

So let's say there's a Hindu who has never even heard the name of Jesus Christ. He has a desire to good. He follows his conscience. According to what you say right here, that's all it takes for him to be a Christian.

Those are your exact words.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Ahab said:

So I was right when I said: I think he's just having trouble imagining how they would feel loved and respected by those who did not want them to marry.  The key point being that "he is having trouble" imagining that.  He doesn't understand how they would.

Or can you imagine it and yet still not understand it?

No, you weren't right.  I said:  "I struggle to understand how a person can feel loved and respected by you if they know that you feel their marriage is "morally repugnant"."

This was in response to a statement Scott made pages ago wherein he said that other expressions of love and respect (apart from attending a wedding and congratulating them) would not condone homosexual behavior "especially if they understand how you feel about said behavior."  (That was top of page 7).  Earlier (toward the end of page 5) he had said:  "It is a false dichotomy and emotional blackmail to insist that the only way to show love and respect is to condone behavior one finds morally repugnant."

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do I have to embrace your view in order to be eligible to show love and respect to the couple?

Nope. I already acknowledged that.

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can’t I do that even though I earnestly believe their homosexual behavior is morally wrong and refuse to endorse it? 

Yes, absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The object of my disapproval is the immoral behavior, not the individuals. 

The behavior being their marriage.

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

and I don’t concede that I’m falsifying your statements. 

I've told you that you are, provided evidence of such, and I get to be the arbiter of my own statements.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Like you have done repeatedly with Rockpond, you are attributing to me what I have not said.

It's ridiculous that he has to keep misrepresenting our statements in order to make his point.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The behavior being their marriage.

I've told you that you are, provided evidence of such, and I get to be the arbiter of my own statements.

The marriage because it contemplates sustained and repeated immoral behavior. 
 

I feel your evidence is lacking that I have falsified your statements. You are welcome to clarify, but when you have done so it has affirmed my earlier impression. 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Here are your words:

So let's say there's a Hindu who has never even heard the name of Jesus Christ. He has a desire to good. He follows his conscience. According to what you say right here, that's all it takes for him to be a Christian.

Those are your exact words.

Yes.  A Hindu can be a Christian, to some extent, just by following his or her conscience (what members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, generally speaking, also refer to as the light of Christ.)

Is this surprising to you?  Note that I'm not saying the Hindu Christian is necessarily a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or a Catholic, or a Baptist, or some other kind of Christian.

Still, though, I am not saying that non-Christians are Christians.  That would be what is called an oxymoron, I think.  You can't be something and not be it at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The marriage because it contemplates sustained and repeated immoral behavior. 
 

I feel your evidence is lacking that I have falsified your statements. You are welcome to clarify, but when you have done so it has affirmed my earlier impression. 

My evidence is solid and has been provided repeatedly.  Additionally, @Calm and @stemelbow have told you that you were misrepresenting what I had written.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, you weren't right.  I said:  "I struggle to understand how a person can feel loved and respected by you if they know that you feel their marriage is "morally repugnant"."

This was in response to a statement Scott made pages ago wherein he said that other expressions of love and respect (apart from attending a wedding and congratulating them) would not condone homosexual behavior "especially if they understand how you feel about said behavior."  (That was top of page 7).  Earlier (toward the end of page 5) he had said:  "It is a false dichotomy and emotional blackmail to insist that the only way to show love and respect is to condone behavior one finds morally repugnant."

Go back to my prior comparison. A convert to the Church who knows his parents believe he is on the road to hell because he has affiliated with a cult could still accept gestures of love and respect from his parents. He doesn’t need their approval of his membership in the Church for him to accept those gestures. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

My evidence is solid and has been provided repeatedly.  Additionally, @Calm and @stemelbow have told you that you were misrepresenting what I had written.

If so, they are wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's ridiculous that he has to keep misrepresenting our statements in order to make his point.

HJW misrepresented me. He implied that I would take a child out of a will for being in a gay marriage. This was totally out of the blue. I never said anything remotely like that. 
 

And he implied I would refuse to allow them to visit at Christmas. I said just the opposite, including on my list of ways to show love and respect inviting them to be involved in family gatherings and remembering them at Christmas. 
 

If anyone is misrepresenting, it is he. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, you weren't right.  I said:  "I struggle to understand how a person can feel loved and respected by you if they know that you feel their marriage is "morally repugnant"."

This was in response to a statement Scott made pages ago wherein he said that other expressions of love and respect (apart from attending a wedding and congratulating them) would not condone homosexual behavior "especially if they understand how you feel about said behavior."  (That was top of page 7).  Earlier (toward the end of page 5) he had said:  "It is a false dichotomy and emotional blackmail to insist that the only way to show love and respect is to condone behavior one finds morally repugnant."

So you're saying you don't understand how a person can feel loved and respected by (you) if they know that (you) feel their marriage is "morally repugnant".  I put (you) in parentheses because the (you) could probably be anybody and not just Scott, personally.

Now let's extend that to anything else somebody thinks or feels is "morally repugnant", and not just their marriage.  Do you not understand how a person could feel loved and respected by someone even if they feel that something else about them is "morally repugnant" to that person?

In short I'll sum it up to say this is about loving the sinner but hating the sin or sins they commit.  I love my children but I don't love everything they do, especially when they do something I feel is morally repugnant.  And they know I love and respect them even though I hate all of the bad things they do, which I tell them about to try to get them to stop doing those bad things.

 You may just need to write this one up as something you just do not understand right now.  I could go on trying to explain it for you but it would probably be better if you just wait to learn about this by experience, when your children do something you think is morally repugnant.

Then  you could then tell us whether you think your children know you still love and respect them even when they do things you feel are morally repugnant.

Edited by Ahab

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You claimed to have read my post yet you are still falsely ascribing attitudes and views to me. I never said anything about disowning someone from a will. I never said anything like refusing to allow them to visit at Christmas. I said just the opposite, in fact. One of the items on my list was inviting their involvement in family gatherings and activities. Another was remembering them at Christmas with cards and/or gifts. 
 

You are creating straw men and, by implication, bearing false witness. Stop it. 

I think I just need to stop following your comments because you're being irrational. At the very least you are totally incapable of understanding a very basic point.

FTR- I never said you said.... those things. It was an example to illustrate that even if some positive things are done to show some level of caring, negative actions also influence how a person feels. Rarely is a person's interaction all good or all bad with another person. But you are advocating rejection of a couple in a very personal and big way while suggesting that it's ok because you can show kindness in other ways, assuming all of those other kindnesses (if done at all) will actually make up for the overt rejection.

BTW- board nannying is bad enough, but accusing me of bearing "false witness" against you is over the top. Grow up.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

There is a lot more for you to learn and I think you're in a pretty good place where you can learn some more truth now. 

I will say that over the years I've known you here it is statements like this that are off-putting. They come off as arrogant, patronizing, and condescending.

Is there more for me to learn? Of course there is. But the point is how you appear when you say things like this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

HJW misrepresented me. He implied that I would take a child out of a will for being in a gay marriage. This was totally out of the blue. I never said anything remotely like that. 
 

And he implied I would refuse to allow them to visit at Christmas. I said just the opposite, including on my list of ways to show love and respect inviting them to be involved in family gatherings and remembering them at Christmas. 
 

If anyone is misrepresenting, it is he. 

I never implied you said any such thing. I used examples of things people have done. Even Pres. Oaks made a comment about how a SS couple shouldn't expect to stay at his home or be introduced to his friends. Your reading comprehension is really suffering.

Dude, you seriously need to get a grip and read for understanding. You are misunderstanding a LOT from many posters here.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

So you're saying you don't understand how a person can feel loved and respected by (you) if they know that (you) feel their marriage is "morally repugnant".

Ellen DeGeneres and George Bush understand, and have shown how!

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Ahab said:

So you're saying you don't understand how a person can feel loved and respected by (you) if they know that (you) feel their marriage is "morally repugnant".  I put (you) in parentheses because the (you) could probably be anybody and not just Scott, personally.

Now let's extend that to anything else somebody thinks or feels is "morally repugnant", and not just their marriage.  Do you not understand how a person could feel loved and respected by someone even if they feel that something else about them is "morally repugnant" to that person?

In short I'll sum it up to say this is about loving the sinner but hating the sin or sins they commit.  I love my children but I don't love everything they do, especially when they do something I feel is morally repugnant.  And they know I love and respect them even though I hate all of the bad things they do, which I tell them about to try to get them to stop doing those bad things.

 You may just need to write this one up as something you just do not understand right now.  I could go on trying to explain it for you but it would probably be better if you just wait to learn about this by experience, when your children do something you think is morally repugnant.

Then  you could then tell us whether you think your children know you still love and respect them even when they do things you feel are morally repugnant.

I think actions and choices of our kids fall into a different category than a loved one's marriage.  While a marriage may be an action or a choice it is on a different level than say, the choice to do drugs.

I can speak to how I would feel:  If someone communicated to me that they felt my marriage was morally repugnant, I would not feel loved or respected by them.  And I would be unlikely to give them much space in my life.  My wife and kids are my world and I don't know how I could believe that someone, who found my relationship with them to be morally repugnant, also loved and respected me.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes.  A Hindu can be a Christian, to some extent, just by following his or her conscience (what members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, generally speaking, also refer to as the light of Christ.)

Is this surprising to you?  Note that I'm not saying the Hindu Christian is necessarily a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or a Catholic, or a Baptist, or some other kind of Christian.

Still, though, I am not saying that non-Christians are Christians.  That would be what is called an oxymoron, I think.  You can't be something and not be it at the same time.

A Hindu is by definition a non-Christian! You are twisting words and definitions, which is why my original post said your argument is meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think actions and choices of our kids fall into a different category than a loved one's marriage.  While a marriage may be an action or a choice it is on a different level than say, the choice to do drugs.

I can speak to how I would feel:  If someone communicated to me that they felt my marriage was morally repugnant, I would not feel loved or respected by them.  And I would be unlikely to give them much space in my life.  My wife and kids are my world and I don't know how I could believe that someone, who found my relationship with them to be morally repugnant, also loved and respected me.

I think Ellen DeGeneres and George Bush have shown that people can indeed feel loved and respected while their politics (and I'll suggest that includes their moral positions on marriage) are at such odds.

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...