Panel About The Conference

[Scott Lloyd]

True, the very best source would be the 12 themselves but he did not say that he received it from the 12.

He leaves virtually no room for doubt that it was his intended meaning.

 

He doesn't even say that his source received it from the 12. It's still hearsay not factual evidence. That said, if that's the only thing you're contending is at odds between the two accounts (Peterson's blog & Dehlin's KUER statement) ...

 

 

 

Of course it's not the only thing, but it is a very important one.

 

 

... then I'm back to feeling that their recounting of the events that transpired are really not that far apart.

 

 

And I'm still as astounded by that expression as I was before.

 

And maybe we could put the feud behind us and move forward.

 

At this point I'm more than willing to lay the matter down, but I'm conceding nothing.

[rockpond]

He leaves virtually no room for doubt that it was his intended meaning.

Of course it's not the only thing, but it is a very important one.

And I'm still as astounded by that expression as I was before.

At this point I'm more than willing to lay the matter down, but I'm conceding nothing.

Your interpretation of Peterson's post, reading into it something that he did not actually state, does not constitute factual evidence. And I didn't realize it was permissible on this board to disparage a fellow church member without providing evidence to support your claim.

But so be it, we can be done with you "conceding nothing" but providing only Peterson's opinion as support.

I'll concede that there seems to be no factual evidence to support either claim (that there was or was not an apostle involved).

[Scott Lloyd]

Your interpretation of Peterson's post, reading into it something that he did not actually state, does not constitute factual evidence. And I didn't realize it was permissible on this board to disparage a fellow church member without providing evidence to support your claim.

The one who has been disparaged in this whole scenario is Daniel Peterson. To continually state or imply that high-level Church leaders ordered his dismissal from an academic post has to be damaging to his reputation. When the incessant claim is false -- as it most certainly appears to be -- it is scarcely less than defamation. And it is most certainly unjust.

 

But as I said, you can feel free to complain about me to the moderators of the board (assuming you haven't already done so).

 

 

But so be it, we can be done with you "conceding nothing" but providing only Peterson's opinion as support.

 

It is not an opinion. It is an assertion of fact that scarcely leaves any room for doubt as to his intended meaning.

 

 

I'll concede that there seems to be no factual evidence to support either claim (that there was or was not an apostle involved).

 

I told you I was ready to lay this down. Why do you keep repeating yourself?

Edited October 19, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

I told you I was ready to lay this down. Why do you keep repeating yourself?

You said that you "concede nothing" which I took to say that you stand by your unsubstantiated claim that Dehlin is clearly wrong. So, I responded, in kind, by saying what I concede: which is, that neither man (Peterson, Dehlin) has provided proof of his respective claim regarding apostle involvement in the matter.

I actually thought that would be a fair way to end it... Our side by side concessions.

Goodnite,

rp

Edited October 19, 2013 by rockpond

[CV75]

There is precious little evidence of upward flow.

That is because there is no flow of political influence in any direction through the council system, only spiritual.

 

But inspiration, on the other hand, flows throughout all the councils; and not up or down, but more along the routes of a web, with the Lord at the center. The Lord hears and addresses the matters raised in the councils at all levels. Those presiding in any of the councils share pertinent matters and outcomes with those presiding above them, and so forth. Politicking just doesn’t have a place. Because the Lord is also aware of individual and group needs, He may interject such inspiration into the councils for the sakes of individuals and groups. So we all count to Him.

[CV75]

So the church had been training us on the use of councils and involving sisters for two decades and the decision (independent of the blogging/campaign activity) happened to come right at the same time? Like I said, it's an astonishing coincidence. Gen Con was not specifically called out in Pres. Kimball's letter but it does fall under the scope of "all meetings that sisters attend". But I'm curious, if the LWP campaign had "false legitimacy" why were sisters allowed to pray? Obviously the request was legitimate even if it wasn't what led to the decision.

I don’t think it is astonishing at all! There are many ways that timing could have occurred (limited only by how far one wants to speculate), including sheer coincidence. I just don’t believe politicking is how the Lord works through the saints and their councils to get things done in the Church; I think it represents "some other way" than the Spirit.

 

And I‘m not so sure General Conference at the time was viewed as another “meeting.” I’m sure if President Kimball and his successors meant it to be included they would have called for corrections to be made in the fourscore general conferences since then. Last April’s change wasn’t a correction, especially considering the two decades of council training where praying in general conference went unaddressed. It seems to me that President Kimball was addressing questions about the unit, and not general or auxiliary meetings of the Church at the time.

[rockpond]

I don’t think it is astonishing at all! There are many ways that timing could have occurred (limited only by how far one wants to speculate), including sheer coincidence. I just don’t believe politicking is how the Lord works through the saints and their councils to get things done in the Church; I think it represents "some other way" than the Spirit.

 

And I‘m not so sure General Conference at the time was viewed as another “meeting.” I’m sure if President Kimball and his successors meant it to be included they would have called for corrections to be made in the fourscore general conferences since then. Last April’s change wasn’t a correction, especially considering the two decades of council training where praying in general conference went unaddressed. It seems to me that President Kimball was addressing questions about the unit, and not general or auxiliary meetings of the Church at the time.

 

So, if it was the Spirit prompting the councils to allow women to offer prayers in conference, how can you be sure that the sisters in LWP were also not being prompted by the Spirit?  They arrived at the same conclusion, at the same time.  But you call them "falsely legitimate".  Why is that?

 

You are saying that "last April's change wasn't a correction".  So, was President Kimball's counsel inspired of the Lord?  If it was, are you saying that the Lord didn't want women to pray in conference until April of 2012?

[Stone holm]

That is because there is no flow of political influence in any direction through the council system, only spiritual.

 

But inspiration, on the other hand, flows throughout all the councils; and not up or down, but more along the routes of a web, with the Lord at the center. The Lord hears and addresses the matters raised in the councils at all levels. Those presiding in any of the councils share pertinent matters and outcomes with those presiding above them, and so forth. Politicking just doesn’t have a place. Because the Lord is also aware of individual and group needs, He may interject such inspiration into the councils for the sakes of individuals and groups. So we all count to Him.

 

So the Church is devoid of political influence?  Guess ETB missed that memo.  And so you are saying that spiritual influence only goes downward, because I see precious little influence of any type going upwards.

[CV75]

So, if it was the Spirit prompting the councils to allow women to offer prayers in conference, how can you be sure that the sisters in LWP were also not being prompted by the Spirit?  They arrived at the same conclusion, at the same time.  But you call them "falsely legitimate".  Why is that?

Theirs seems to have been an attempt to give a false legitimacy by the way they manipulated the quote from President Kimball craft the implication of an unheeded directive about an unmentioned General Conference. I don’t think the Spirit prompted that or the politicking; their campaign was a product of human genius, however similar the outcome may superficially appear. You’re the one who brought up the underlying earlier causes and related movements.

 

You are saying that "last April's change wasn't a correction".  So, was President Kimball's counsel inspired of the Lord?  If it was, are you saying that the Lord didn't want women to pray in conference until April of 2012?

That is all I’m saying, pure and simple. President Kimball announced: “The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve have determined that there is no scriptural prohibition against sisters offering prayers in sacrament meetings. It was therefore decided that it is permissible for sisters to offer prayers in any meetings they attend, including sacrament meetings, Sunday School meetings, and stake conferences. Relief Society visiting teachers may offer prayers in homes that they enter in fulfilling visiting teaching assignments.”

 

President Kimball also announced that wives of Church leaders should wear dresses, not pantsuits, while accompanying their husbands on Church assignments.

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/11/news-of-the-church

 

I do think both these comments by President Kimball were inspired by the Lord (so why was there no corresponding creativity by the LWP / Wear Pants to Church folks in reference to support for not wearing pants?). I believe the GC prayer assignments all along have been inspired. As far as what the Lord wants, I am satisfied with what He inspires His servants to have us do.

[CV75]

So the Church is devoid of political influence?  Guess ETB missed that memo.  And so you are saying that spiritual influence only goes downward, because I see precious little influence of any type going upwards.

I guess you missed some posts.

 

Where does your spiritual influence come from, above or below? Which direction would you rather hearken to? Why are working through councils better than politicking?

 

Why do you think our general authorities ask you to pray for them?

[rockpond]

Theirs seems to have been an attempt to give a false legitimacy by the way they manipulated the quote from President Kimball craft the implication of an unheeded directive about an unmentioned General Conference. I don’t think the Spirit prompted that or the politicking; their campaign was a product of human genius, however similar the outcome may superficially appear. You’re the one who brought up the underlying earlier causes and related movements.

 

That is all I’m saying, pure and simple. President Kimball announced: “The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve have determined that there is no scriptural prohibition against sisters offering prayers in sacrament meetings. It was therefore decided that it is permissible for sisters to offer prayers in any meetings they attend, including sacrament meetings, Sunday School meetings, and stake conferences. Relief Society visiting teachers may offer prayers in homes that they enter in fulfilling visiting teaching assignments.”

 

President Kimball also announced that wives of Church leaders should wear dresses, not pantsuits, while accompanying their husbands on Church assignments.

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/11/news-of-the-church

 

I do think both these comments by President Kimball were inspired by the Lord (so why was there no corresponding creativity by the LWP / Wear Pants to Church folks in reference to support for not wearing pants?). I believe the GC prayer assignments all along have been inspired. As far as what the Lord wants, I am satisfied with what He inspires His servants to have us do.

 

So, it's your position that the Lord did not want women to pray in conference until April 2012?  Or you are just satisfied that it took church leaders that long to allow it?

[CV75]

So, it's your position that the Lord did not want women to pray in conference until April 2012?  Or you are just satisfied that it took church leaders that long to allow it?

Why do you keep offering alternative options to what I actually said?

[rockpond]

Why do you keep offering alternative options to what I actually said?

 

I'm not "offering alternative options", I'm trying to ask clarifying questions.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So, it's your position that the Lord did not want women to pray in conference until April 2012?  Or you are just satisfied that it took church leaders that long to allow it?

Straw man alert.

[Stone holm]

Straw man alert.

 

Why is that a "straw man"?

[CV75]

I'm not "offering alternative options", I'm trying to ask clarifying questions.

Sorry, I can't dumb it down any further: I said, "As far as what the Lord wants, I am satisfied with what He inspires His servants to have us do."

[rockpond]

Sorry, I can't dumb it down any further: I said, "As far as what the Lord wants, I am satisfied with what He inspires His servants to have us do."

 

So, in 1978 you feel that the Lord inspired President Kimball to have women pray in all meetings that they attend except general conference.  But He chose not to inspire "His servants" to have women pray in general conference until sometime after October 2011?

 

And the women in the LWP group... they don't count as His servants and they could not have been inspired by Him as well?

 

p.s.  I'm not asking you to "dumb it down", I'm asking you to consider the implications of what you are stating.  And yes, I get that you don't really want to face those implications.

Edited October 21, 2013 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

And the women in the LWP group... they don't count as His servants and they could not have been inspired by Him as well?

Is the LWP group entitled to receive revelation governing the entire Church?

[CV75]

So, in 1978 you feel that the Lord inspired President Kimball to have women pray in all meetings that they attend except general conference.  But He chose not to inspire "His servants" to have women pray in general conference until sometime after October 2011?

 

And the women in the LWP group... they don't count as His servants and they could not have been inspired by Him as well?

 

p.s.  I'm not asking you to "dumb it down", I'm asking you to consider the implications of what you are stating.  And yes, I get that you don't really want to face those implications.

These are the rigid implications you keep pushing, but I don't consider them valid because a) the Lord's inspiration in 1978 and 2012 reflects His timing and conditions, not yours (it's not a "But...," it's an "And then..." *); b) divinely inspired servants of the Lord do not politick His Church (the LWP group just did what politickers do); c) divinely inspired servants of the Lord work through councils.

 

* Using your phraseology: "So, in 1978 I feel that the Lord inspired President Kimball to have women pray in all meetings that they attend except general conference and then He chose to inspire His servants to assign women to pray in the April 2013 general conference."

[rockpond]

Is the LWP group entitled to receive revelation governing the entire Church?

 

No.

[rockpond]

* Using your phraseology: "So, in 1978 I feel that the Lord inspired President Kimball to have women pray in all meetings that they attend except general conference and then He chose to inspire His servants to assign women to pray in the April 2013 general conference."

 

Fair enough.

 

And I don't see LWP as "politicking" (engaging in political activity).  They petitioned the leadership of the church in the best way they could determine possible, and I think it is possible for them to receive inspiration to make such a petition (just inspiration to make the petition, not revelation governing the church -- to answer Scott's point).

Edited October 21, 2013 by rockpond

[Stone holm]

These are the rigid implications you keep pushing, but I don't consider them valid because a) the Lord's inspiration in 1978 and 2012 reflects His timing and conditions, not yours (it's not a "But...," it's an "And then..." *); b) divinely inspired servants of the Lord do not politick His Church (the LWP group just did what politickers do); c) divinely inspired servants of the Lord work through councils.

 

* Using your phraseology: "So, in 1978 I feel that the Lord inspired President Kimball to have women pray in all meetings that they attend except general conference and then He chose to inspire His servants to assign women to pray in the April 2013 general conference."

What were the differences between 1978 and 2013?

[CV75]

Fair enough.

 

And I don't see LWP as "politicking" (engaging in political activity).  They petitioned the leadership of the church in the best way they could determine possible, and I think it is possible for them to receive inspiration to make such a petition (just inspiration to make the petition, not revelation governing the church -- to answer Scott's point).

The "best way one can determine possible" does not an inspiration make. Becuse of D&C 50 and 88, I don't see them as inspired servants of God, but as regular people with a personal agenda, and lacking any direction by the Holy Spirit on this specific request or the approach they took to create and make their point.

 

And for some reason they aren't nearly as animated about creatively extrapolating a broader application out of President Kimball's stance on pantsuits!

[rockpond]

The "best way one can determine possible" does not an inspiration make. Becuse of D&C 50 and 88, I don't see them as inspired servants of God, but as regular people with a personal agenda, and lacking any direction by the Holy Spirit on this specific request or the approach they took to create and make their point.

 

And for some reason they aren't nearly as animated about creatively extrapolating a broader application out of President Kimball's stance on pantsuits!

 

I didn't say that the "best way one can determine possible" was the inspiration.  I'm suggesting that they may have been inspired to ask to have women pray in conference.  You and I both seem to agree that the Lord wanted women to pray in conference so I don't see it as unlikely that the Spirit could have prompted those women to seek such a goal.

[CV75]

I didn't say that the "best way one can determine possible" was the inspiration.  I'm suggesting that they may have been inspired to ask to have women pray in conference.  You and I both seem to agree that the Lord wanted women to pray in conference so I don't see it as unlikely that the Spirit could have prompted those women to seek such a goal.

I see their request as not being inspired by the Spirit, considering the way they went about expressing and justifying their goal.

 

Also, as they said (on the blog), they requested it because they would "like to see" it, it was important to them, and this is how they felt about it, what it means to them, etc. Check their own website and their instructions on writing the letters and the samples. It is geared toward expressing their concern. There is no indication in the instructions or the sample letters of seeking the Spirit or to making a prayerful consideration about what they are doing.

 

So I see the movement as an example of politics affecting the campaigners' attitudes and perspectives on this point rather than the Spirit influencing the campaigners' politics on this point.