Jump to content

Vanguard

Members
  • Content Count

    239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

128 Excellent

2 Followers

About Vanguard

  • Rank
    Member: Moves Upon the Waters
  • Birthday 11/28/1965

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Utah

Recent Profile Visitors

2,097 profile views
  1. He was actually the bass player. ; )
  2. MFB - Could you provide a very brief primer (a launching off point) of this pragmatic philosophy? Give me how YOU would characterize it. : )
  3. Greetings, Navidad. I believe you are correct with your closing comment here. All those who sincerely follow the dictates of their conscience retain for themselves the potential for exaltation in the Lord's kingdom saving ordinances notwithstanding. Nevertheless, these ordinances will be done for all mankind either during their mortality or afterward through the vicarious work we do in temples. Please know, however, as monumentally important as these ordinances are, I believe they absolutely pale in comparison to each man's effort to follow his conscience in this morality whether that includes a belief in the Savior or in the authority of the LDS Church to effect said ordinances or not. From what little I know of you, you strike me as as a good Christian man. Carry on. : )
  4. Then what do you say of what must be countless folks who pass while having sinned yet before they've had a chance to renew their baptismal covenants by taking the Sacrament? Or what of those - though decidedly less in number - who are baptized but yet never get a chance to take the Sacrament even once? Why don't we have a temple endowment that would include vicarious talking of the Sacrament for that population? Could it be because the Godhead does not deem 'vicarious Sacrament' as being necessary for exaltation like he does so many of the other saving ordinances? And who knows what to make of Bednar's comment that seems to contradict the Church Handbook?
  5. Partaking of the Sacrament cannot be a a saving ordinance in the sense that baptism and temple marriage are. There are simply too many scenarios where folks do not ever partake or only partake a limited number of times. To say that ANYONE who did not partake during this mortality will be denied salvation runs afoul of the gospel as I understand it. That's why we've made 'arrangements' to provide for other ordinances - ordinances that indeed would prevent salvation - to be completed for those who did not receive them in this mortality.
  6. So you're in favor of removing the reporting mandate for those who work with children? And if not, why not?
  7. Fair enough. Thanks for elaborating. I still can't get beyond the notion this privilege affords the perpetrator a potential 'get out of jail free' card. As long as he follows the prescription the bishop lays out (short of confessing to legal authority), he can eventually work his way back into the gospel's good graces all the while running a real risk of re-offending. Or - absent a legal authority confession - will he always be prevented from having full privileges reinstated? And what of the victim? Where is any chance of reparative therapy if all actions the bishop recommends comes with the caveat 'as long as the perpetrator is not incriminated'? It seems to place the privilege of the perpetrator above the potentially desperate needs of the young, mentally compromised, or senior victim.
  8. Already answered and expanded upon in my previous post. Can you answer my question and expand upon it?
  9. Perhaps in a close knit faith community the role of a bishop (ward father?) is qualitatively different than an attorney or doctor. The attorneys and doctors are your friend for a fee (as with any other profession) whereas the bishop has a much more substantial stewardship that extends far beyond a person/s material and/or legal well-being. When a bishop is hamstrung from taking definitive action to protect an innocent child in his own faith community for which he has spiritual oversite, it seems much more a travesty when these things go unreported. I'm ok with the doctors and lawyers - I never looked to them for my own spiritual well-being and growth anyway. Does that actually seem that far-fetched to you?
  10. I think there should be a distinction between priest-penitent and the rest. In the case of p-p, there should be no member privilege. Do you agree?
  11. Do each of those privileges listed allow the report of abuse (child, dependent, elderly) to remain confidential? I know the doctor-patient privilege does not. What about your other examples?
  12. Way too many legal considerations/ramifications for sure! Though probably a bit reactionary on my part and infused with much bravado, I would rather the law pertaining to the priest-penitent privilege be eliminated when it comes to abuse of minors, dependent adults, and the elderly (as currently defined by law). That this could throw a wrench into the perpetrator's desire to come clean and/or 'his' own repentence process does not trump the overarching importance of protecting these vulnerable populations. These perpetrators still have a moral obligation to come clean despite any concerns the bishop might 'rat them out'. That so many do not confess their crime and so many loved ones keep it hushed is another topic for discussion.
  13. Part of the problem is the other extreme where bishops would be required by law to report literally any suspicion of child abuse whether such abused happened or not. In therapy circles this mandate is discussed often. The conclusion is almost always better safe than sorry as long as it was reasonable to assume the possibility of abuse. There is never the need to consider what a false allegation might do to the family. In the case of a bishop, however, the damage a false allegation lodged by him can have horrific repercusions within the ward community. It's horrific enough to almost consider turning down the calling. : (
  14. I found the conference to be pretty much as any other conference (satisfying) excepting the presentation of the new proclamation. This 'jazzed' it up quite a bit though I do understand HJW's sentiments. There was a great build-up for this conference and the buzz was that this one would be one for the ages. It definitely was not. My wife had even speculated (after having read about another 'last days' timeline speculation) that we would clearly be moving into the final stages as we approximate the 2nd Coming. For her and for me it wasn't even a blip on the radar. Don't misunderstand though - I did not believe all the hype. I aporoached this time as I do all others. Interestingly and aside from the proclamation, I found the most inspiring part to be the final musical arrangement where the many choirs were combined. Of course, that may be because Sao Paulo Brasil was represented - you know, God's country. ; )
  15. Those are great questions. I have thought about the very thing often and especially as it relates to my two minor children. Would I let them go to a worship service just because one of their girlfriends invited them? Let me tell you - it smacks as a double standard for sure. I'll advocate for bringing those same girls to our services with the reasoning that "come on, it's not like we're going to try and convert them!" But when the shoe is on the other foot...well, you know... ; )
×
×
  • Create New...