Elder Scott's Talk

[consiglieri]

Yes. Your hope pre-supposes that Elder Scott must change, when you are in no position to judge such. Elder Scott, as an Apostle, is in a position to judge whether the teacher should change.

I believe that Elder Scott is an apostle of the Lord, and a special witness of Jesus Christ, and sustain him as such.

I believe the message of his talk was a good one. It impacted me personally and made me do some introspection on the methods I use to teach.

All I have done is say I found one comment in his entire talk inappropriate.

Why is this considered wrong?

I am genuinely confused here.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jason]

I believe that Elder Scott is an apostle of the Lord, and a special witness of Jesus Christ, and sustain him as such.

I believe the message of his talk was a good one. It impacted me personally and made me do some introspection on the methods I use to teach.

All I have done is say I found one comment in his entire talk inappropriate.

If it worked for you and did you good then why do you consider it inappropriate?

[consiglieri]

If it worked for you and did you good then why do you consider it inappropriate?

Because I like to think I can put myself in the shoes of another once in a while.

[Jason]

Because I like to think I can put myself in the shoes of another once in a while.

Perhaps you should object only when you actually have a personal stake, rather than trying to object anytime you suppose someone might have been offended.

[consiglieri]

Perhaps you should object only when you actually have a personal stake, rather than trying to object anytime you suppose someone might have been offended.

When they came for the Jews, I said nothing because I wasn't a Jew . . .

[Jeff K.]

Nor are you an apostle.

Personally I don't feel comfortable equating apostles with nazis.

Of course I may be misinterpreting who you are attempting to represent in that statement.

[Jason]

When they came for the Jews, I said nothing because I wasn't a Jew . . .

I could be wrong, but I think there is a slight difference between "offended" and "carted off to a concentration camp."

[Jeff K.]

During my mission I was once "talked to" by a General Authority. It was a misunderstanding of sorts.

We were in Tacna Peru for a zone conference and the last bus leaving town was leaving shortly. Elder Abrea was giving a talk, a somewhat long talk. We sent a note to the Mission President requesting that my district be allowed to leave. Explaining that we also had a baptism the next morning and so it was important to be there. Our mission president sent a note back asking us to tactfully leave one elder at a time. The zone was large enough to accomodate such an action without making anyone noticeable (one hoped). So the sisters left quietly, no worries. One elder left... his companion, an elder from Salt Lake had the grace of a gazelle in an epliptic episode while simultaneously picked up in a windstorm. What did that mean? It meant Elder Abrea "noticed" and made apriori connections. My companion left, and then as I left he said "Stop elder I will end in just a moment". He ended quickly and just as he sat down said to me "Joseph Smith said never leave a meeting before it is over".

Now, forgetting what happened later and what I said... Should I have been offended by this?

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

Now, forgetting what happened later and what I said... Should I have been offended by this?

I guess that would depend on whether "never leave a meeting before it is over" is an exact (and verfied) historical quote by Joseph Smith.

If not, you'd think an General Authority should know better.

[consiglieri]

Now, forgetting what happened later and what I said... Should I have been offended by this?

I don't know.

Would it have made you feel better if he had just announced it during General Conference?

But really, this whole discussion is getting far afield.

I tried to narrow it earlier, but it keeps getting ballooned out of proportion, I think.

I did not say I was "offended" by what Elder Scott said.

I did not say he should not have given his talk.

I did not even say he should not have made the comment under consideration.

The sole issue we are discussing is whether the one comment he made was appropriate to make in the forum he made it, and whether it is even possible for a General Authority to say anything inappropriate in General Conference.

I am starting to feel uncomfortable with the idea that the LDS Church is one where apostles and prophets are treated like the Pope.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

Consig you are constantly going back to presuming an apostle said inappropriate things. As mentioned before you deem it inappropriate, but do the same when claiming it of Elder Scott, that is blatant hypocrisy.

Never mind the fact you absolutely don't know if he had permission.

Never mind the fact that an apostle indeed has the right to bring up specific individuals if directed so.

Never mind the fact that he made you feel particularly uncomfortable and still you refuse to review your own motivations in this.

Nothing was inappropriate in his talk.

The only inappropriate issue here is how you imagine a slight towards someone you know nothing about, and then judge it so.

I am starting to feel uncomfortable with the idea that the LDS Church is one where apostles and prophets are treated like the Pope.

The Pope does not receive revelation for the church, an apostle and prophet does. Accordingly they should be afforded more respect.

I would suggest that rather than finding fault in those chosen by the Lord you seek to find out why the beam in your own eye is blinding you.

[Mordecai]

One of the things I find troubling about Elder Scott's address is that, as I took time to think about it more, it struck me as strange that he would be saying on the one hand that the "second" Sunday school teacher was more interested in showing what he knew than in teaching his class; and then in the next breath Elder Scott was talking about all the personal revelation Elder Scott was receiving that was too "sacred" to share.

Elder Scott's goal was to teach us something. I think he thought telling us that he had those revelations and that he would not share them would help us somehow. Do you believe he was hoping to impress us with his revelations? I am certain he would do no such thing.

Another thing I found troubling is that any Sunday school teacher who is not in Mexico City who had Elder Scott sit in for the class during the past year is going to be feeling pretty bad about now.

I've never found it a good principle to worry about what people may or may not think or feel. If he told the truth and had good intentions, I have no problem with that whatsoever. If some people worry he was talking about them, perhaps they will be humble and do better. Maybe they will leave the Church. Maybe they will say, "Whether he was talking about me or not, no one is perfect." Regardless, I have no problem whatseover... not in the slightest. I am fully confident that Elder Scott has our good in mind.

[Senator]

Consig you are constantly going back to presuming an apostle said inappropriate things. As mentioned before you deem it inappropriate, but do the same when claiming it of Elder Scott, that is blatant hypocrisy.

Never mind the fact you absolutely don't know if he had permission.

Never mind the fact that an apostle indeed has the right to bring up specific individuals if directed so.

Never mind the fact that he made you feel particularly uncomfortable and still you refuse to review your own motivations in this.

Nothing was inappropriate in his talk.

The only inappropriate issue here is how you imagine a slight towards someone you know nothing about, and then judge it so.

The Pope does not receive revelation for the church, an apostle and prophet does. Accordingly they should be afforded more respect.

I would suggest that rather than finding fault in those chosen by the Lord you seek to find out why the beam in your own eye is blinding you.

Since you speak of hypocrisy in this very post, I am very surprised that you would end with the sentence you did. (actually I'm not surprised)

[Jeff K.]

Senator

I don't mind being called to repentance when it is preceived I have done wrong. Certianly not by someone in authority.

My problem is the ego centric who rather than take to heart talks at conference prefer to deconstruct those talks in an effort to undermine their message and look for an escape from the call of repentance that they know they have received.

An imagined slight that puts an apostle up for judgement? This is straw grasping by the prideful. That certainly is hypocrisy. You presume, wrongly, that somehow one should absolutely not judge what is wrong. I state that I am willing to be held to the same standard I hold others. I am not fine with people acting this way, and it worries me that such people may be teachers of those whose testimonies need strengthening. Can you imagine the attempt of this imagined slight in Sunday School or priesthood? Of course not. And then presuming that the slight was the equivalent of jews going to concentration camps. You might be ok with that. I am not.

The church has never been destroyed by the enemies from without.

[Jeff K.]

Your willingness senator, to allow others to undermine apostles does not surprise me. Unlike you I know of the application of scripture in its proper form. You should study them sometime.

[Senator]

Can you imagine the attempt of this imagined slight in Sunday School or priesthood? Of course not. And then presuming that the slight was the equivalent of jews going to concentration camps.

Do you really think Consig would do that?

[Jeff K.]

Only if such a person thought they could get away with it. Which makes it all the more duplicitous.

[changed]

I don't mind being called to repentance...

an old post I keep around...

Metanoia

Do you know the word? It is Greek, and is used numerous times in the New Testament. To understand what the word means, you have to break it into parts

Meta = change (like meta state)

Noia = perception / mind / consciousness / awareness

So Metanoia is a change in how you perceive what is reality.

My sister in law was telling me about a new movie. The movie is about a couple that go through a separation, is done from the viewpoint of the wife. The wife finds evidence that her husband is unfaithful. The husband leaves her, never calls, does not seem to feel the least bit of remorse for what he has done to her. The entire movie is the wife trying to cope with feelings of rejection and misuse. At the end of the movie, the husband is found, he has been killed in an accident. He was never unfaithful. He did not return her phone calls because he was dead. She was living in a world that did not really exist. Her feelings were real, anger, jealousy, hatred

[Senator]

Only if such a person thought they could get away with it. Which makes it all the more duplicitous.

Do you really think Consig would do that if he thought he could get away with it?

[Bernard Gui]

It is my hope that the anonymous teacher to whom Elder Scott obliquely referred will take his message to heart and change whatever he needs to change in the manner he presents the Gospel.

Is it wrong for me to have the same hope for Elder Scott?

When Mrs. Gui and I were listening to that part of the talk, I turned to her and said, "That's going to be one embarrassed Sunday

School teacher because everyone in the ward is going to know about whom he is talking." She agreed (strange but true).

Perhaps Elder Scott had already spoken with him in private about the problem and had his permission to

bring it up in conference. I don't know if that is the case, but I hope so. Even though many speakers use anecdotal stories

about members and people they communicate with, I thought it was unusual for a speaker to single

out a person who could be identified by those familiar with the situation.

Bernard

[Jeff K.]

I haven't seen much in the way of church history scholarship from Consig, generally he has been wrong and almost right. But imprecise while claiming to be precise.

No, I don't see Consig accepting Elder Scotts talk. I see him looking at a way to get around the talk.

It is the only way I can view someone creating a straw man in order to create an imagined slight that does not exist beyond the imagination of one man who presumes it to be fact.

Judging by his original reaction (and despondency) I would say that he has chosen the path that allows him to maintain his ego and his teaching method without the idea of repentance and is presently almost desperately creating an imagined slight in order to lower or bring down a talk that he doesn't agree with.

We know nothing about the presumed Sunday School teacher, but Consig's entire focus is on creating a perceived slight by an apostle. Thus making the talk inappropriate (his words, not mine). If one part of a talk is 'inappropriate', he then has a foothold in ignoring the rest.

I won't give him that, because it begs us to accept what is tacitly untrue.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 06 October 2009 - 08:47 PM, said:

Only if such a person thought they could get away with it. Which makes it all the more duplicitous.

Do you really think Consig would do that if he thought he could get away with it?

Absolutely, I believe such people have displayed such a characteristic here in this forum.

When told you are wrong regarding a portion of church history, rather than accept it, you choose to obfuscate. To do this is telling of a flawed ego.

[Senator]

deleted

[Senator]

Absolutely, I believe such people have displayed such a characteristic here in this forum.

When told you are wrong regarding a portion of church history, rather than accept it, you choose to obfuscate. To do this is telling of a flawed ego.

Very well then. I judge that your judgment of people is overzealous and run amok. See how judging is a vicious cycle? I just did it.

[Senator]

Another thread likely to be closed do to JeffK's inability to control his utter personal disdain for Consig. Thanks Jeff.