Pahoran Posted November 21, 2011 Posted November 21, 2011 And I'm so glad he had the guts to stand up for what's right! - Even when he was likely "chastised" for it.He was not standing up for what's right. He was opposing the Lord's anointed servants, and the Church and Kingdom upon the earth.As for being "chastised," he was too proud to accept correction, being already entirely apostate.Regards,Pahoran
Duncan Posted November 21, 2011 Author Posted November 21, 2011 He was not standing up for what's right. He was opposing the Lord's anointed servants, and the Church and Kingdom upon the earth.As for being "chastised," he was too proud to accept correction, being already entirely apostate.Regards,Pahoranapostate or not but that takes serious guts to do it in the Tabernacle
selek1 Posted November 21, 2011 Posted November 21, 2011 apostate or not but that takes serious guts to do it in the TabernacleUtter rot. No one in their right minds believes he would have faced any repurcussions that he hadn't already taken upon himself.Try that kind of public dissension and apostacy inside places like Iran or Korea and then come back and tell me how "courageous" his stand was.It was a publicity stunt then and it remains a publicity stunt now.Piracy with a banner is still piracy.Self-aggrandizement, apostacy, faitfhlessness, and insurrection all remain sins- whether or not one wraps oneself in the flag first. 1
Duncan Posted November 21, 2011 Author Posted November 21, 2011 Utter rot. No one in their right minds believes he would have faced any repurcussions that he hadn't already taken upon himself.Try that kind of public dissension and apostacy inside places like Iran or Korea and then come back and tell me how "courageous" his stand was.It was a publicity stunt then and it remains a publicity stunt now.Piracy with a banner is still piracy.Self-aggrandizement, apostacy, faitfhlessness, and insurrection all remain sins- whether or not one wraps oneself in the flag first.granted but still takes something to do it in the tabernacle, you would have to really believe in whatever cause! I have no idea about this fellow or what he stood for, I was born a year after this happened
Calm Posted November 21, 2011 Posted November 21, 2011 Or he could be like those who do the most absurd and embarrassing stuff, making a fool of themselvesin public, etc. just to get a few seconds of fame, feel like they are somehow in power/control of others if only for a moment, enjoy drawing attention to oneself, etc. Some people arent that nervous in public after all.
Duncan Posted November 21, 2011 Author Posted November 21, 2011 Or he could be like those who do the most absurd and embarrassing stuff, making a fool of themselvesin public, etc. just to get a few seconds of fame, feel like they are somehow in power/control of others if only for a moment, enjoy drawing attention to oneself, etc. Some people arent that nervous in public after all.true too!
blackstrap Posted November 21, 2011 Posted November 21, 2011 He, perhaps, feels responsible for the priesthood change that took place about a year later. Anyone have an answer to "where is he now?" ?
Thinking Posted November 21, 2011 Posted November 21, 2011 It's amazing that Marchant is called an apostate, yet the Church changed its policy in June of the following year.
selek1 Posted November 21, 2011 Posted November 21, 2011 It's amazing that Marchant is called an apostate, yet the Church changed its policy in June of the following year.Not especially....it was his self-aggrandizing tactics and bad attitude that were the problem, not his goal.Like Brutus or Cassius, his aims were noble- it was his methods left much to be desired.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 21, 2011 Posted November 21, 2011 It's amazing that Marchant is called an apostate, yet the Church changed its policy in June of the following year.No more amazing than the fact that people today are excommunicated for practicing what in the past was taught and encouraged in the Church (plural marriage).Marchant was an apostate just as surely as the schismatic groups who broke away from the Church of Jesus Christ and claimed divine approbation for their rebellion.
Sky Posted November 21, 2011 Posted November 21, 2011 I’ve never opposed anybody to serve in a particular church calling. And thankfully, nobody has ever done it to me. Actually, I’ve never seen it been done, ever. Thankfully this seems to happen only on extremely rare occasions.I’ve always raised my right hand to support people in their callings, and I appreciate it when others do the same for me. It is a sign of support and unity. I don’t mean that there can’t ever be a valid reason to oppose somebody in a new calling. The thing that I’ve noticed the most is that some members don’t remember to raise their hands to sustain themselves. I’ve heard a lot of bishops say over the pulpit “It is proposed that we ordain Brother so-and-so to the office of an Elder. All those in favor please manifest.” And the person being ordained to the office of an Elder doesn’t raise their right hand. And then the bishop will say something to prompt him to raise their hand.
Sky Posted November 21, 2011 Posted November 21, 2011 here is a theoretical scenario- an inactive guy becoming say a counselor in the stake presidency or HC or Bishopric-would you oppose that?I assume that he would have had to become sufficiently active again before he could be called to these positions. So I would almost certainly sustain him. There are lots of reasons why somebody might go “inactive”, but that is between them and their bishop and the Lord. There is always repentance. My initial gut feeling always tells me to sustain people in their callings.
Recommended Posts