Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scott Lloyd

Temple recommend interview questions

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

And several of us have talked to you in an attempt to try to get you to think a bit more about what you think and why you think what you think and why you should consider changing your mind on some things.

Yes.  It's called communication.  I see that you are starting to talk like I do at least a little bit now.  I like it when people talk like I do.  Thank you!

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Doesn't seem to be working though as your communication style is as confusing as ever (and more people seem to be commenting on it, not less imo) and whatever knowledge you have that others don't have is not being conveyed effectively.

I like to communicate with people and it is frustrating when it obviously isn't happening.  And I don't see you communicating with people much, but rather just posting. 

What you see is not what everybody else sees.  And what ttribe sees isn't what everybody else sees, either.

If you don't get it then you just don't get it.  Don't worry about it.  Maybe you're not supposed to get it right now.  Maybe you're just not ready to receive it right now.

It's kinda like talking in parables.  Some just say something like "Huh?" and some other people just get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I see that you are starting to talk like I do at least a little bit now.  I like it when people talk like I do.  Thank you!

Not going to repeat the effort given the result.

Quote

What you see is not what everybody else sees. 

And if myself and tribe were the only ones stating "huh?" or commenting on your remarks as condescending, you might have a point.  Occasionally you present your ideas coherently and you get approval, rep points (I gave one to you myself a day or two ago, but I was surprised I could do it actually), but the more common response I see is confusion or being turned off by the presumption you know so much more than others and people should be listening to you.

I am not trying to be insulting though I bet it comes across that way.  This has been going on for years though with no positive change, so it seems better to be brutally honest rather than gentle.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I suppose you realize your answer to question 7 should be in the affirmative.

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 hope you will answer it honestly.

Always.

And, I’m not aware of any official Church teachings that God can’t accept a same sex marriage.  Only that He ordains marriage between a man and a woman and that is the Brethren’s belief about his definition of marriage. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not going to repeat the effort given the result.

I bet you would have liked it if I had agreed with you.   I'm not here just to agree with you, though.

I share my ideas just to get them out there, without expecting other people to agree with me.

It would be nice if we all agreed with each other, though, wouldn't it.  And also agreed with God.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I bet you would have liked it if I had agreed with you.   I'm not here just to agree with you, though.

I share my ideas just to get them out there, without expecting other people to agree with me.

It would be nice if we all agreed with each other, though, wouldn't it.  And also agreed with God.

It is not agreement I am looking for, but understanding.  You demonstrate over and over again you are often not understanding people's post or not caring to actually engage with what they say.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Always.

And, I’m not aware of any official Church teachings that God can’t accept a same sex marriage.  Only that He ordains marriage between a man and a woman and that is the Brethren’s belief about his definition of marriage. 

 

What you call "the Brethren's belief about his definition of marriage" is a teachings, practice, and doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and your idea that same sex marriage is okay is contrary to Church teachings on this issue.

So you do support or promote teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thus your answer to question 7 should be in the affirmative.

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

Am I speaking in a language you can understand?  

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is not agreement I am looking for, but understanding.  You demonstrate over and over again you are often not understanding people's post or not caring to actually engage with what they say.

I understand just fine.  I just do not agree with what many people are saying.  Get that?  Do you understand my language now?  I understand you just fine.

Say something else now and then check back with me to see if I understand you.  I'll let you know in some way that I do, even though I may not be in agreement with you.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not going to repeat the effort given the result.

And if myself and tribe were the only ones stating "huh?" or commenting on your remarks as condescending, you might have a point.  Occasionally you present your ideas coherently and you get approval, rep points (I gave one to you myself a day or two ago, but I was surprised I could do it actually), but the more common response I see is confusion or being turned off by the presumption you know so much more than others and people should be listening to you.

I am not trying to be insulting though I bet it comes across that way.  This has been going on for years though with no positive change, so it seems better to be brutally honest rather than gentle.

i gave up and just put him on ignore

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, etana said:

i gave up and just put him on ignore

I usually have him on ignore as well.  People struggling with him get my attention though.  On occasion I read ignored posts because of wanting distraction and get pulled in.

Maybe a realistic appraisal of what many people are doing with his posts will get through.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Calm said:

And if myself and tribe were the only ones stating "huh?" or commenting on your remarks as condescending, you might have a point.

My point is valid regardless of how many people agree with you and ttribe or how many people agree with me.  We are here to communicate ideas with each other and I am open and out front with my ideas. 

How about just not criticizing me or the way I talk or the way you perceive that i feel.  Just cut out all of your personal remarks against me and deal with what I am saying.  And if you don't understand me, ask me to clarify further.

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Occasionally you present your ideas coherently and you get approval, rep points (I gave one to you myself a day or two ago, but I was surprised I could do it actually), but the more common response I see is confusion or being turned off by the presumption you know so much more than others and people should be listening to you.

I do know a lot more than some other people here and it wouldn't hurt anybody to hear what I am saying.  It's nice for me to know that you can understand me at least some of the time, even if you do not agree with me.

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not trying to be insulting though I bet it comes across that way.  This has been going on for years though with no positive change, so it seems better to be brutally honest rather than gentle.

I take what you say as your own opinion, a reflection of what you think and feel, not necessarily the correct perception.  If I talk in a way that you do not like or are not accustomed to hearing maybe you should just ignore me and  not say anything to me.

That way you won't be criticizing me personally and I will never know that you never heard anything I have said.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

What you call "the Brethren's belief about his definition of marriage" is a teachings, practice, and doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and your idea that same sex marriage is okay is contrary to Church teachings on this issue.

So you do support or promote teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thus your answer to question 7 should be in the affirmative.

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 fully support the teaching that man/woman marriage is ordained of God.  And I practice it!

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Am I speaking in a language you can understand?  

If you want to keep dialoguing with me you need to cut out rude remarks like this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, rockpond said:

I fully support the teaching that man/woman marriage is ordained of God.  And I practice it!

If you want to keep dialoguing with me you need to cut out rude remarks like this. 

Sorry, several people telling me they don't understand what I have said or the way I say things has me on edge a little bit.  Instead of trying to share my ideas with others I think I'll just take a break from the board for a while.  Again.

I hope you will have a merry Christmas and a happy new year!

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, etana said:

Absolutely, but that misses much of the nuance of the discussion here. For relevance, do you think, had he been invited, that President Bush would have attended Ellen's wedding? 

I don't know. But I think we can still learn in principle. Despite their respective and opposing rhetoric and polemics in the political arena (and I seem to recall that included views on the morality of ssm--both pro and con), they can still be friendly and even affectionate toward each other. Even if he would have declined to attend her wedding.

We need to know, accept and treat people as children of God first, the rest takes a fairly distant second place (at least in my relationships). Lots of wiggle room for standing for one's own principles while still being charitable, whatever those principles may be.

I think the Church, for purposes of recommends and discipline, shows a fairly liberal attitude toward individual belief, which I think reflects her priorities for charity, compassion, the sanctity of the human spirit and helping unbelief where good faith is expressed through whatever degree of practice can be displayed (as in Mark 9:24).

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Always.

And, I’m not aware of any official Church teachings that God can’t accept a same sex marriage.  Only that He ordains marriage between a man and a woman and that is the Brethren’s belief about his definition of marriage. 

 

Agreed. I support the right of any two people to marry, as long as they are consenting adults. regardless of gender, orientation, or race.  This is the law of the land.  I believe I am being a good citizen in obeying, honoring and sustaining this law.  That would be my answer to #7 and I doubt any Bishop or SP would have a problem with it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

You gave your examples in the context of coming at me with public-shaming questions after I had insisted you review my prior post in which I gave a series of suggestions for gestures of love and respect. Your examples were wholly inconsistent with the suggestions I gave. How am I expected to take that? Who would your examples be applied to in that context if not to me?
 

By the way, when and where did President Oaks talk about not letting a gay couple stay at his home or not introducing them to friends? I’d like to read that for myself. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You gave your examples in the context of coming at me with gotcha questions after I had insisted you review my prior post in which I gave a series of suggestions for gestures of love and respect. Your examples were wholly inconsistent with the suggestions I gave. How am I expected to take that? Who would your examples be applied to in that context if not to me. 
 

By the way, when and where did President Oaks talk about not letting a gay couple stay at his home or not introducing them to friends? I’d like to read that for myself. 

HJW could be referring to the 2006 interview with (then) Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman (https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction) in which this statement was made:

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’

ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By the way, when and where did President Oaks talk about not letting a gay couple stay at his home or not introducing them to friends? I’d like to read that for myself. 

It's a bit more nuanced than that ...

Quote

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’

ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

HJW could be referring to the 2006 interview with (then) Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman (https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction) in which this statement was made:

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’

ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all.

Thanks for the link. I already read it from Hamba’s post, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Calm said:

The attachment of the term "morally repugnant" to the judgment places the judgment in a different category than disagreement or viewing the marriage as immoral imo.

Repugnant usually means repulsed, disgusted and my mind always goes to the image gagging or one's nose wrinkling up in distaste when confronted by repulsive fruit.  "Repugnant" implies a very strong, negative emotional feeling and even likely a physical reaction when speaking of the object that is repugnant...which would tend to be both memorable if expressed and weighted as a very significant part of the attitude towards the couple imo.  I can see them struggling to understand how such a strong emotional reaction would not color every interaction and overwhelm positive feelings, even if somehow the person was capable of compartmentalizing such a strong feeling (which I do believe is possible, humans are good at adapting to the needs of a situation).

Perhaps Scott sees "morally repugnant" in different terms though as his paraphrases often seem to ignore the strength of emotional value attached to the word (I am not suggesting finding something repugnant means someone is being overly emotional, I am talking about how influential that feeling will have on other attitudes and feelings).

The emotional connotations and associations you personally attach to a word or phrase are not binding on me. 
 

But I will say that any violation of the law of chastity, be it heterosexual or homosexual, is repugnant. Hence, if a behavior is immoral, it is by definition repugnant.
 

Laws permitting gay marriage do not alter the immoral character of the sexual behavior, since the laws of God only recognize marriage as being between a man and a woman. 

Likewise, the intent of a heterosexual couple to make a home for a child conceived out of wedlock, positive though it may be, does not alter the immoral character of their sexual relations outside of marriage, either in the past or going forward. 

I checked an online dictionary in search of a normative definition and found two meanings for repugnant.

The first is “distasteful.” Violation of the law of chastity is certainly that. 
 

The second definition is “incompatible with,” as in “The defendant’s outburst is repugnant to the decorum that should prevail in a courtroom.”  I didn’t use the word in that grammatical form, but if I had, it would probably have been something along the lines of “repugnant to the laws of God” or “repugnant to the Lord’s law of matrimony.”

I used the word one time in this discussion thread. Rockpond keeps repeating it, probably thinking to score debating points or place me at a disadvantage by conjuring up associations and feelings such as you have described. But if he insists on doing so, my recourse is to double down on my use of the word with the normative meaning that I understand it to convey. and that I have cited here. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I used the word one time in this discussion thread. Rockpond keeps repeating it, probably thinking to score debating points or place me at a disadvantage by conjuring up associations and feelings such as you have described. But if he insists on doing so, my recourse is to double down on my use of the word with the normative meaning that I understand it to convey. and that I have cited here. 

Nobody is scoring debating points here or trying to “place you at a disadvantage.”  It’s just a discussion.

The only reason I kept repeating the word is because I had to keep re-posting the statement as you continued to misrepresent what I had written. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I also think Ellen and George are good examples of the following principle (paraphrased from D&C 121): “Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by [moral and political bias]; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy…”

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I used the word one time in this discussion thread. Rockpond keeps repeating it, probably thinking to score debating points or place me at a disadvantage by conjuring up associations and feelings such as you have described. But if he insists on doing so, my recourse is to double down on my use of the word with the normative meaning that I understand it to convey. and that I have cited here. 

Because: Winning > Understanding

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ttribe said:

Because: Winning > Understanding

I understand better than you think. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I understand better than you think. 

I meant reaching an understanding between the two conversants, as opposed to trying to win a debate.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...