Panel About The Conference

[Scott Lloyd]

With the exception of local press involvement, all of that already goes on in the ward. There are pet agendas, there is nannying to enforce individual views, there are protests in the hallways, and an occasional disparaging remark on social media. All of it is at the expense of our gospel duties. As a bishopric, we work within that environment (on a vastly smaller scale than the general authorities of the church - let it be known that I am NOT comparing myself to them, just responding to your hypothetical).

So, I got your point.

And your parenthetical note at the end is incorrect. Statements from the apostles do give me pause. I clearly understand that according to Elder Oaks, I have been shown the exit door. And yet, I still went right back to my responsibilities. In fact, shortly after Elder Oaks' talk I put my suit on and went to our ward building for a meeting with the sister missionaries to discuss the status of our less active YSA's. I am as unsure what to make of that as you are.

How did Elder Oaks's talk show you the door?

[rockpond]

How did Elder Oaks's talk show you the door?

 

Elder Oaks:  "Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them."

[wenglund]

With the exception of local press involvement, all of that already goes on in the ward.  There are pet agendas, there is nannying to enforce individual views, there are protests in the hallways, and an occasional disparaging remark on social media.  All of it is at the expense of our gospel duties.  As a bishopric, we work within that environment (on a vastly smaller scale than the general authorities of the church - let it be known that I am NOT comparing myself to them, just responding to your hypothetical).

 

So, I got your point.

 

No, I don't believe you do get my point. There is no indication in what you just said to suggest that you see the self-appointed nannying, the protests, the disparaging remarks, etc,, as ineffectual and contrary to wisdom and the proper order of things, and are to be discouraged rather than indulged.

 

 

 

And your parenthetical note at the end is incorrect.  Statements from the apostles do give me pause.  I clearly understand that according to Elder Oaks, I have been shown the exit door.  And yet, I still went right back to my responsibilities.  In fact, shortly after Elder Oaks' talk I put my suit on and went to our ward building for a meeting with the sister missionaries to discuss the status of our less active YSA's.  I am as unsure what to make of that as you are.

 

I can't imagine how you could have reasonably interpreted Elder Oaks talk as you being shown the door, But, there it is. All I can do is shake my head.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 15, 2013 by wenglund

[jkwilliams]

Any term can be misapplied.

But inherently, the term anti-Mormon is neither pejorative or silly. It is not logical that one who truly opposes nor detests Mormonism should take offense at having a term applied to him that correctly denotes his opposition to Mormonism. Again, see my sig line.

 

Well, I will just say that it's used indiscriminately and unfairly far too often. And I honestly don't know too many people who despise or detest Mormonism. Perhaps we should be more judicious in applying the term.

[rockpond]

No, I don't believe you do get my point. There is no indication in what you just said to suggest that you see the self-appointed nannying, the protests, the disparaging remarks, etc,, as ineffectual and contrary to wisdom and the proper order of things, and are to be discouraged rather than indulged.

 

Yes, I do get that.  And, no, we don't indulge but we do consider.

[rockpond]

I can't imagine how you could have reasonably interpreted Elder Oaks talk as you being shown the door, But, there it is. All I can do is shake my head.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I apologize for the hyperbole.  But I do think, in his opinion, I need to correct my views and that he would consider them apostate.  (That's my understanding of what he was saying, feel free to let me know how you understood him.)

[Damien the Leper]

I've re-read this post about a dozen times now, and still can't make sense of it.

 

I was first addressing my opinion that I've never felt as though you were a bigot. Just my personal opinion.

 

Secondly, I agreed with you in that I also do not mind being called a critic. I am a critic. I'm also harshly critical. Political correctness, as I've learned and adopted from this board, is absolutely worthless. It is best to say what you mean and not coddle anyone's feelings.

 

[wenglund]

Elder Oaks:  "Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them."

 

I am not seeing a door there. Rather, I am seeing a logic conclusion.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

I apologize for the hyperbole.  But I do think, in his opinion, I need to correct my views and that he would consider them apostate.  (That's my understanding of what he was saying, feel free to let me know how you understood him.)

 

It seems to me that all he was saying was that just because something is legal, or even because something has to be sanctioned in accordance with Constitutional law, does not mean it isn't sinful.  That seems to me to be a no brainer, not even sure why he bothered saying it (a question I asked my wife, and her answer was because some people just don't get it).  Drinking alcohol is legal for adults, do we consider it proscribed or sinful -- yep.  Adults watching adult pornography is lawful in many States do we consider it sinful -- yep.  Marrying somebody of the same sex is now lawful in many States and is quite likely Constitutionally will be required to be authorized in all States eventually -- does that make such unions non-sinful in the eyes of the Church? Nope.  What is so Earth shattering about that?  One might ask why did he need to pour salt in a freshly open wound?  Don't know perhaps he thought people might get confused on the subject and somehow conclude that everything that was legal was "a okay" with the Church, can't imagine anybody in that mental range being baptized, but you never know.  What I wish he would have spent some time on is that it might not be right to make everything we consider sinful illegal -- but after all this is Elder Oaks we are talking about.

[rockpond]

It seems to me that all he was saying was that just because something is legal, or even because something has to be sanctioned in accordance with Constitutional law, does not mean it isn't sinful.  That seems to me to be a no brainer, not even sure why he bothered saying it (a question I asked my wife, and her answer was because some people just don't get it).  Drinking alcohol is legal for adults, do we consider it proscribed or sinful -- yep.  Adults watching adult pornography is lawful in many States do we consider it sinful -- yep.  Marrying somebody of the same sex is now lawful in many States and is quite likely Constitutionally will be required to be authorized in all States eventually -- does that make such unions non-sinful in the eyes of the Church? Nope.  What is so Earth shattering about that?  One might ask why did he need to pour salt in a freshly open wound?  Don't know perhaps he thought people might get confused on the subject and somehow conclude that everything that was legal was "a okay" with the Church, can't imagine anybody in that mental range being baptized, but you never know.  What I wish he would have spent some time on is that it might not be right to make everything we consider sinful illegal -- but after all this is Elder Oaks we are talking about.

 

I agree with you and your summary of Elder Oaks statements.  But I have been told, on more than one occasion, that my views on gay marriage are incompatible with a member (in good standing) of the church.

[Stone holm]

I agree with you and your summary of Elder Oaks statements.  But I have been told, on more than one occasion, that my views on gay marriage are incompatible with a member (in good standing) of the church.

 

Well I don't know what your views exactly are -- if your views are that gays should be sealed in the Temple, well they may be right.  If your views are that gays should have the legal right to marry under the Constitution, then they are probably wrong.

[rockpond]

Well I don't know what your views exactly are -- if your views are that gays should be sealed in the Temple, well they may be right.  If your views are that gays should have the legal right to marry under the Constitution, then they are probably wrong.

 

I believe that they should have a legal right to marry.

 

And I believe that it would take no less than a prophetic revelation to allow them to be sealed in the temple.

Edited October 15, 2013 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

Elder Oaks:  "Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them."

OK. My question remains: How does that amount to showing you the door?

 

On rare occasions when I've heard something at conference that challenges an attitude that I have, I've been disposed, perhaps, to do some introspection. But I've never, ever felt that I was being driven away.

 

By the way, are you first or second counselor in the bishopric?

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, I will just say that it's used indiscriminately and unfairly far too often.

 

I don't see it used frequently at all, let alone indiscriminately.

 

And I honestly don't know too many people who despise or detest Mormonism.

 

 

 

 

I don't either, personally. But they are ubiquitous on the Internet and elsewhere.

 

 

Perhaps we should be more judicious in applying the term.

 

I don't feel I ever use it injudiciously.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

OK. My question remains: How does that amount to showing you the door?

 

On rare occasions when I've heard something at conference that challenges an attitude that I have, I've been disposed, perhaps, to do some introspection. But I've never, ever felt that I was being driven away.

 

By the way, are you first or second counselor in the bishopric?

 

I admit there was some hyperbole there but, honestly, after years of being told that my views make me apostate (or borderline apostate) I am a little sensitive to comments such as his.

 

I don't actually feel that I am being driven away.  That's why I said that I returned right back to the work of my calling.

 

I've been both, currently serving as 1st.

[Scott Lloyd]

I was first addressing my opinion that I've never felt as though you were a bigot. Just my personal opinion.

 

Secondly, I agreed with you in that I also do not mind being called a critic. I am a critic. I'm also harshly critical. Political correctness, as I've learned and adopted from this board, is absolutely worthless. It is best to say what you mean and not coddle anyone's feelings.

 

Thanks. This is crystal clear now.

 

And I agree with you. (Especially the part about my not being a bigot.   )

[Scott Lloyd]

I admit there was some hyperbole there but, honestly, after years of being told that my views make me apostate (or borderline apostate) I am a little sensitive to comments such as his.

 

I don't actually feel that I am being driven away.  That's why I said that I returned right back to the work of my calling.

 

I've been both, currently serving as 1st.

Your dedication is praiseworthy.

[rockpond]

Your dedication is praiseworthy.

 

Well, I appreciate that.  (I honestly was not trying to fish for a compliment, just trying to show my state of mind.)

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, I appreciate that.  (I honestly was not trying to fish for a compliment, just trying to show my state of mind.)

I didn't perceive you as fishing for it.

[Stone holm]

I believe that they should have a legal right to marry.

 

And I believe that it would take no less than a prophetic revelation to allow them to be sealed in the temple.

 

Well, if I were your Bishop -- which I am not, then I can't see anything wrong there.  On the other hand if you were agitating that they should have some right to be sealed in the Temple or that you thought they should be sealed in the Temple, then I would think you were on very, very thin ice.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, if I were your Bishop -- which I am not, then I can't see anything wrong there.  On the other hand if you were agitating that they should have some right to be sealed in the Temple or that you thought they should be sealed in the Temple, then I would think you were on very, very thin ice.

What about expecting an LDS bishop to perform a marriage for them outside of the temple?

[rockpond]

Well, if I were your Bishop -- which I am not, then I can't see anything wrong there. On the other hand if you were agitating that they should have some right to be sealed in the Temple or that you thought they should be sealed in the Temple, then I would think you were on very, very thin ice.

I don't believe that I have agitated. I do hope for a day when gay couples can be sealed but I recognize that it must be the will of the Lord and must be revealed as such (to the prophet).

[rockpond]

What about expecting an LDS bishop to perform a marriage for them outside of the temple?

That would be a clear violation of church policy and teachings. Respect for religious freedom requires that the church be able to define who can and cannot be married by a bishop even outside of the temple/chapel.

[CV75]

Well, as you allude, I have a hard time seeing a social media campaign starting for a particular cause within our ward because the bishopric and ward council are so readily available to everyone.  That's not a criticism of the Brethren... it's obviously easier for us to be accessible to a ward of 400 than for them to be accessible to 15 million.

 

If some campaign were to start, I imagine we would quickly discuss it as a bishopric and then, likely, move it into the ward council.  I imagine plans would be made to act appropriately in response or speak with the members about why such an idea couldn't be implemented.

My questions have to do with the validity of social marketing (or similar) campaigns as a valid part of the Church’s decision-making process on doctrine and policy, rather than one way to draw attention. Once that is accomplished, the merits of the issue itself are evaluated in council (per D&C 50 and 88), and decisions are made. The campaign and the council are two very different processes.

 

What you desccibe as a bishopric works at all the other levels. Would a bishopric really encourage members to work through capmaigns rather than councils, or ask members to develop campaigns about things that are important to them for evaluation in leadership councils?

 

The Church may campaign after making decisions in council, but campaigns from any other source have no active role in the councils themselves. This is why the Church works through councils from the local (including stake and area) and into the general levels. It is the more united and edifying way to approach things than dealing with campaigns, especially those that take on a political life of their own and persist long after the question has been raised, usually pitting one against the other.

[Stone holm]

That would be a clear violation of church policy and teachings. Respect for religious freedom requires that the church be able to define who can and cannot be married by a bishop even outside of the temple/chapel.

I agree, and why would anyone expect a Bishop to marry a non member or if they were members people who would shortly be excommunicated for seeking to be so united?