Brian William'S Rock Center: Mormon In America

[Scott Lloyd]

You have a rather expansive view of what constitutes a blessing.

Not at all. The ability to live, work and rear a family in a relatively safe environment is a blessing that ought not be taken for granted and for which thanks should be given often.

Not that you are wrong, but I thing some might scoff.

I think they would be hard-pressed to provide a rational justification for their derision.

If I, using due care, cross the street without getting hit by a car, is that a blessing?

Absolutely, if your "due care" can reasonably assure the prevention of injury. As I noted, the negligence of a drunk driver or a habitual violator of traffic laws reduces that assurance -- which inhibits your blessing. That is to say, even one who exercises due care could be the victim of a drunk or reckless driver where due care would otherwise prevent injury or fatality.

At what point does free agency come into play?

This is precisely my point. One's improper exercise of his own agency* can and very often does inhibit or destroy the blessings enjoyed by others -- in the short term, at least.

*The proper term is agency or moral agency; "free agency" is a colloquialism.

[rpn]

How many people do you know who got reclaimed when someone called them in to their office and told them they were forfeiting the blessings if they dated a non-member for three weeks. We all respond to lifting and love, very rarely criticism (less when it's criticism of our personal choices). (BTW, I really know I don't know what the bishop was thinking or doing. I just know that when you have an adult slightly off the track, calling them to repentance is NOT going to change their behavior. Of course it could, theoretically. But we respond with a desire to serve Him when we feel His love for us.)

[Libs]

I was think along that line, as well, rpn.

According to Abby's story, she was "pushed out" by the Bishop's action, not "reclaimed".

[USU78]

I was think along that line, as well, rpn.

According to Abby's story, she was "pushed out" by the Bishop's action, not "reclaimed".

One might claim rather that she grasped this excuse to hang her already ripe disaffection on . . . and we only have her word for the proposition that it was somebody else's fault.

[Scott Lloyd]

How many people do you know who got reclaimed when someone called them in to their office and told them they were forfeiting the blessings if they dated a non-member for three weeks.

I suspect that your characterization is a somewhat garbled version of what was actually said in the interview.

And to answer your question, the reaction to being corrected probably varies and and depends at least as much on the level of humility and openness to correction on the part of the one being corrected as it does on the message and manner of approach of the one doing the correcting.

We all respond to lifting and love, very rarely criticism (less when it's criticism of our personal choices). (BTW, I really know I don't know what the bishop was thinking or doing. I just know that when you have an adult slightly off the track, calling them to repentance is NOT going to change their behavior. Of course it could, theoretically. But we respond with a desire to serve Him when we feel His love for us.)

I get the impression from Abby's on-air remarks that she would not have liked what the bishop had to say regardless of how gently and lovingly it was expressed.

[Scott Lloyd]

I was think along that line, as well, rpn.

According to Abby's story, she was "pushed out" by the Bishop's action, not "reclaimed".

I very much doubt that was the bishop's intent. It would be most unlike any bishop I have ever had or associated with in the Church.

[Libs]

I very much doubt that was the bishop's intent. It would be most unlike any bishop I have ever had or associated with in the Church.

I'm sure it was not his intent, but people do, sometimes, exercise poor judgment...even Bishops.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm sure it was not his intent, but people do, sometimes, exercise poor judgment...even Bishops.

I remain unpersuaded, based on the limited information available, that such happened in this instance.

[Damien the Leper]

If what Abby Huntsman says about her experience with her former bishop is true then that bishop is wrong and an idiot.

[Mark Beesley]

Not at all. The ability to live, work and rear a family in a relatively safe environment is a blessing that ought not be taken for granted and for which thanks should be given often.

Cinepro originally wrote that our blessings are contingent on the actions of others all the time; thesometimesaint asked, how so, to which you provided some examples of how a person's enjoyment of life might be interrupted by someone else's misuse of their free agency. (Forgive me, I'm colloquial at heart. )

Your examples, it would seem to me, are good illustrations of how we tend to put to good use the blessing of life which God has granted us. But to break down every aspect of that life and accord it the status of blessing that might be interrupted by others seems, to me, overly expansive.

Certainly, we do not err in thanking God for our lives, for our liberty, and for the comforts of life we enjoy, because all of those things flow from the blessing of life itself. On the other hand, the person living in Iran, North Korea, Syria, Ethiopia, or any other area of the world "less blessed" that the good ole USA, would not err in thanking God for the opportunities afforded them in their own circumstances, which opportunities flow as a result of the blessing of life.

I guess it just comes down to how one wants to define what a blessing is and at what point an event ceases to be a blessing and becomes an effect of a blessing, and whether that makes a difference.

[Mark Beesley]

If what Abby Huntsman says about her experience with her former bishop is true then that bishop is wrong and an idiot.

It is probably reasonable to assume that the Bishop was more charitable in his remarks than you have been.

Don't neglect to note that Abby does not say the Bishop said such and such. She claims that the Bishop basically said ... That word, basically, should be a red flag for anyone wanting to disparage the Bishop. As I read it, Abby is telling what she heard, what she was perceiving, not what the Bishop necessarily said, and what she was hearing or perceiving was likely the Spirit telling her that she was going down the wrong path.

[Mark Beesley]

I'm sure it was not his intent, but people do, sometimes, exercise poor judgment...even Bishops.

Can you provide a firsthand account of a Bishop, acting within his capacity as a Bishop, exercised poor judgment? (Caution: This is a trick question.)

[cinepro]

But to break down every aspect of that life and accord it the status of blessing that might be interrupted by others seems, to me, overly expansive.

It's easier than that.

If anything in this life can be considered a "blessing", then anytime someone's life is ended prematurely due to the intentional or unintentional acts of another, they have been deprived of whichever blessings they were going to receive had they lived.

And to the degree that that person's life would have resulted in blessings to others, those people have also been deprived of blessings by the actions of another person.

The only way to deny this is to argue that nothing in this life is actually itself a "blessing".

Or, to put it another way, can you name a blessing in this life that can't be taken away by the actions of another person?

[Damien the Leper]

It is probably reasonable to assume that the Bishop was more charitable in his remarks than you have been.

Don't neglect to note that Abby does not say the Bishop said such and such. She claims that the Bishop basically said ... That word, basically, should be a red flag for anyone wanting to disparage the Bishop. As I read it, Abby is telling what she heard, what she was perceiving, not what the Bishop necessarily said, and what she was hearing or perceiving was likely the Spirit telling her that she was going down the wrong path.

The operative word in my post was the word IF. Did you just gloss over that?

I'm not in anyway claiming the Bishop did anything wrong.

However, I do like your reasoning. I apply that to how I read the scriptures. Sometimes I read something but I'm not really seeing or hearing what it says...in other words, taking it for how it reads rather than what it actually says. This is a mistake that I have on numerous occasions made. I try to avoid it as much as possible anymore.

[selek1]

I watched the show last night courtesy of Libs link (thanks, BTW).

While I cheerfully admit that it could have been much worse, I found it teeth-grindingly irritating: mostly because of the slack-jawed open-mouthed incredulity of the host and commentators.

It was simply beyond their comprehension that anyone could actually believe the things they were hearing.

In every interview- but especially with the family and the Hunstman daughter- there was an unspoken "Pull the other leg" attitude. The interviewers just knew they were being put upon- and were waiting for everyone to break out laughing.

I particularly object to decribing the Hunstmans as "Mormon royalty".

I've dealt with Mormons and Mormon culture in most of the fifty states and overseas.

The concept is absolutely alien to the faithful.

That having been said- it could have been much worse.

[cinepro]

I particularly object to decribing the Hunstmans as "Mormon royalty".

I've dealt with Mormons and Mormon culture in most of the fifty states and overseas.

The concept is absolutely alien to the faithful.

I've known enough members of the Church from Utah who were related to Mormon royalty, or had families that wished they were, that I know it isn't alien to all the faithful.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

If it was just this life then oblivion. You'd be right. But as the LDS believe that it is much more than this life. Not so much.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've known enough members of the Church from Utah who were related to Mormon royalty, or had families that wished they were, that I know it isn't alien to all the faithful.

An appreciation for one's own ancestral heritage in the Church should not be confused with a claim of "Mormon royalty." An abiding love and gratitude for one's own ancestors is entailed in turning "the hearts of the children to their fathers."

That said, in my experience, those who claim Mormon royalty are apt to be apostates who are trying to enhance the credibility of their slander of the Church. It's the same tendency to inflate one's credentials that drives such a person to claim he has been "in a bishopric," not disclosing that he in fact only occupied some ancillary clerical or secretarial role.

And the above is just as apt to happen whether or not the person is from Utah.

[Libs]

Can you provide a firsthand account of a Bishop, acting within his capacity as a Bishop, exercised poor judgment? (Caution: This is a trick question.)

I could, but it would be just my opinion. I based my statement on the fact that no man is perfect, even when acting within their official capacity (not even the prophet, I wouldn't think).

[cinepro]

An appreciation for one's own ancestral heritage in the Church should not be confused with a claim of "Mormon royalty." An abiding love and gratitude for one's own ancestors is entailed in turning "the hearts of the children to their fathers."

The situations I'm familiar with went beyond "an appreciation for one's own ancestral heritage". For example, we had the newlywed granddaughter of an apostle (and member of the First Presidency - now deceased) living in our ward in Los Angeles, and she talked about the pressure she had from some family members when she chose to marry a man who her family didn't deem "suitable" for them. He was a great, active member of the Church, but wasn't from a preferred lineage or station in life. That was one of the reasons they moved to Los Angeles. To be clear, none of this came from her grandfather, he really like her husband, it was other family members. I also had some friends who went to BYU and had experiences with children of GA's expecting special treatment or consideration (and acting like they owned the place).

I've never lived in Utah, so these stories may have been the rare and unusual exception, but they would indicate that some people in Utah do see certain classes of people as being "royalty" If that's not the case, that is wonderful and I'm glad everyone is able to stay humble and grounded even in a Church with such a well-defined power structure.

[cinepro]

cinepro:

If it was just this life then oblivion. You'd be right. But as the LDS believe that it is much more than this life. Not so much.

It does depend on how you define "blessing". Especially when there are certain blessings which might only apply to this lifetime.

For example, is there a "blessing" available only to those teenagers that go to seminary? A "blessing" of additional spirituality, or knowledge? Anything?

If so, then I could impact my child's ability to have that blessing by whether or not I give them a ride to Seminary. If you argue that there are no "blessings" available to kids who go to Seminary and so they're not being deprived of anything, then you and my son would both agree on something.

[Scott Lloyd]

The situations I'm familiar with went beyond "an appreciation for one's own ancestral heritage". For example, we had the newlywed granddaughter of an apostle (and member of the First Presidency - now deceased) living in our ward in Los Angeles, and she talked about the pressure she had from some family members when she chose to marry a man who her family didn't deem "suitable" for them. He was a great, active member of the Church, but wasn't from a preferred lineage or station in life. That was one of the reasons they moved to Los Angeles. To be clear, none of this came from her grandfather, he really like her husband, it was other family members. I also had some friends who went to BYU and had experiences with children of GA's expecting special treatment or consideration (and acting like they owned the place).

I've never lived in Utah, so these stories may have been the rare and unusual exception, but they would indicate that some people in Utah do see certain classes of people as being "royalty" If that's not the case, that is wonderful and I'm glad everyone is able to stay humble and grounded even in a Church with such a well-defined power structure.

I've lived in Utah virtually my whole life, and the very concept seems not just unusual but weird.

I just asked an acquaintance who is also a lifelong Utahn and is a Cannon descendant if she considers herself Mormon royalty and her response was a very emphatic "No!"

Caveat: She's not descended from George Q., but from his brother Angus, and she saw the NBC show and was just as annoyed as I was about the reference to "Mormon royalty."

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

My kids got the blessings of early morning seminary. While they appreciate the experience now, those early mornings were no fun for my wife when she had to crawl out of bed when they missed their rides.

[DavidB]

Is this letter legit? If so, it may have been more accurate to say the ban was instituted as a result of direct commandment from the Lord. Also seems to be as a "consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God"

You will need to find the letter from another source. You may not link to anti-Mormon sites that post temple content. Sorry.

There are two First Presidency Letters on the Issue. One letter states that we come here knowing the condition we will be in, thus suggesting that worthy Black males knew they would not receive the Priesthood for a period of time. The other letter is similar.

------------------------------------------------------------

As on FAIR

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.

—First Presidency statement, August 17, 1949

The First Presidency went on to state that "the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate." Because of this, understanding the reason for the implementation of the priesthood ban is difficult.

---------------------------------------------------

2012 Statement: It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago.

[cinepro]

I just asked an acquaintance who is also a lifelong Utahn and is a Cannon descendant if she considers herself Mormon royalty and her response was a very emphatic "No!"

I'm not suggesting that it is a universal trait among LDS.

It's like how the Kennedy's are American "Royalty". Most people couldn't care less about them (especially these days), but there are still a subset of the population who consider the family something special.

But since I don't live in Utah, I'll take your word for it that there aren't members of the Church who give special consideration to the family members of Apostles and Prophets, as well as other notable or well known members of the Church there.