Abiltity To Name Specific Mistakes

[thesometimesaint]

I pay real close attention to what comes out of the GA's, Salt Lake City not so much.

[Stone holm]

I pay real close attention to what comes out of the GA's, Salt Lake City not so much.

 

 

I tend not to pay an over amount of attention to what comes out of either one, but probably less the later.  If they are actually talking about doctrine, I do pay attention -- if its primarily crowd control, I tend to fall asleep, warm and fuzzy milk does that to me...

[Scott Lloyd]

When I was first investigating the Church in 1993 and would come home to my father's house to find a copy of The Godmakers on the coffee table stuffed with bookmarks on pages containing issues he wanted to challenge me about, I learned an important principle. As I opened the new set of scriptures someone had given me to begin looking up the issues Dad threw at me, I stayed calm, thought of him as a partner even when he got a little aggressive, and just tried to seek the truth. What I learned there, as in the many anti-Mormon presentations on "cults" I'd been subjected to during youth conferences growing up as a Protestant, is that I could feel when the Spirit was present, when it left the room, which subjects lead to edification and which subjects produce a time-wasting stupor of thought. And while I'm not saying we're all alike and that we should all respond the same way to the same stimuli, what I've learned is that I cannot maintain the presence of the Spirit when I'm high-centered on perceived mistakes by the Church. For me, focusing on perceived mistakes by the Church leads to confusion and a stupor of thought rather than clarity and peace. I love to wrestle with problems -- I do it all day with gusto -- but I don't like to waste time on issues that produce a stupor of thought and zero edification for me. 

 

I think Satan wants us to focus on our mistakes and the mistakes of others. Christ taught us not to consider the mote without first considering the beam, and to those who would stone the woman taken in adultery, he asked first for the sinless among them to cast the first stone, and when they had left, simply told the woman to go and sin no more. Heavenly Father, I think, is not about dwelling on the mistake, especially the mistake of others, but about moving on. 

I have only just now seen this post from a week ago.

 

I'm replying to it solely for the purpose of giving it prolonged visibility as perhaps the most sensible post of this whole long thread.

 

I note that it is the only post made by the author on this board so far. I hope this will not be his/her last post.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm replying to it solely for the purpose of giving it prolonged visibility as perhaps the most sensible post of this whole long thread.

 

Thanks, Scott!

[Robert F. Smith]

ritcheymt, on 21 Nov 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

When I was first investigating the Church in 1993 and would come home to my father's house to find a copy of The Godmakers on the coffee table stuffed with bookmarks on pages containing issues he wanted to challenge me about, I learned an important principle. As I opened the new set of scriptures someone had given me to begin looking up the issues Dad threw at me, I stayed calm, thought of him as a partner even when he got a little aggressive, and just tried to seek the truth. What I learned there, as in the many anti-Mormon presentations on "cults" I'd been subjected to during youth conferences growing up as a Protestant, is that I could feel when the Spirit was present, when it left the room, which subjects lead to edification and which subjects produce a time-wasting stupor of thought. And while I'm not saying we're all alike and that we should all respond the same way to the same stimuli, what I've learned is that I cannot maintain the presence of the Spirit when I'm high-centered on perceived mistakes by the Church. For me, focusing on perceived mistakes by the Church leads to confusion and a stupor of thought rather than clarity and peace. I love to wrestle with problems -- I do it all day with gusto -- but I don't like to waste time on issues that produce a stupor of thought and zero edification for me. 

 

I think Satan wants us to focus on our mistakes and the mistakes of others. Christ taught us not to consider the mote without first considering the beam, and to those who would stone the woman taken in adultery, he asked first for the sinless among them to cast the first stone, and when they had left, simply told the woman to go and sin no more. Heavenly Father, I think, is not about dwelling on the mistake, especially the mistake of others, but about moving on. 

I have only just now seen this post from a week ago.

 

I'm replying to it solely for the purpose of giving it prolonged visibility as perhaps the most sensible post of this whole long thread.

 

I note that it is the only post made by the author on this board so far. I hope this will not be his/her last post.

How about this, http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62350-recent-official-church-statement-on-race-and-the-priesthood/ ?

 

Does it qualify?  How does it make you guys feel?

[canard78]

rockpond, on 15 Nov 2013 - 2:43 PM, said:

Most of the so-called "Brethren" (also a term applied to the once all-male U.S. Supreme Court) are humble men who are only too ready to listen, even when insincere people write to them. They often reply very graciously even to ridiculous diatribes. They also ponder reasonable letters and appeals to their position as shepherds of the flock. We must not underestimate their willingness to listen and learn. So demand away, if you must, and they might just listen, although I counsel a much nicer approach to influencing them. However, please don't waste their time with silly stuff which could best be dealt with by your local bishop or stake president.

My mother exchanged several letters with Elder Neil A. Maxwell. Also Hugh Nibley (not a GA, but almost ).

I should see if she still has them somewhere. I'll avoid the current trend of scanning them onto the Internet.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

ritcheymt, on 21 Nov 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

How about this, http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62350-recent-official-church-statement-on-race-and-the-priesthood/ ?

 

Does it qualify?  How does it make you guys feel?

 

Link doesn't work for me. I get a "Sorry, we couldn't find that" error message.

 

But if it's the thread I expect it is, I'll respond by saying I don't see the recent treatment on the Church website as an admission that the prior restriction pertaining to the priesthood was a mistake.

 

I do take cognizance of the disavowal of prior theories as to the reason for it. But is there really anything new in that?

Edited December 9, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

Link doesn't work for me. I get a "Sorry, we couldn't find that" error message.

 

But if it's the thread I expect it is, I'll respond by saying I don't see the recent treatment on the Church website as an admission that the prior restriction pertaining to the priesthood was a mistake.

 

I do take cognizance of the disavowal of prior theories as to the reason for it. But is there really anything new in that?

 

If you disavow the various supranatural theories, and spend most of the time talking about the fact that it was a racist culture -- doesn't that simply indicate that the Church leadership was influenced by the culture that it was operating in?  So why would there need to be any other explanation, seems like they explained it fairly clearly to me.

[Scott Lloyd]

If you disavow the various supranatural theories, and spend most of the time talking about the fact that it was a racist culture -- doesn't that simply indicate that the Church leadership was influenced by the culture that it was operating in?  So why would there need to be any other explanation, seems like they explained it fairly clearly to me.

I think you're drawing an inference not sustained by the content of the statement.

 

If, prior to 1978, the Brethren prayed for direction as to whether the restriction should be removed and they experienced a collective "stupor of thought" (to use a familiar scriptural idiom), that strikes me as a "no" answer.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

I agree that there is no need to bring out the hair shirt and wear it constantly; that is not repentance. Repentance is acknowledging that we have done wrong, asking for forgiveness and moving forward without any need to address it again. I think this works for organizations as well as individuals. 

 

I have been on a bit of a tear lately, but several of the recent threads are disturbing and there was no need for the situations to evolve as they have. As I have taught my own children since they were but small children; we create our own hell.  

[Tacenda]

I agree that there is no need to bring out the hair shirt and wear it constantly; that is not repentance. Repentance is acknowledging that we have done wrong, asking for forgiveness and moving forward without any need to address it again. I think this works for organizations as well as individuals.

I have been on a bit of a tear lately, but several of the recent threads are disturbing and there was no need for the situations to evolve as they have. As I have taught my own children since they were but small children; we create our own hell.

Good advice for your children. And your posts recently have been spot on.

[Stone holm]

I think you're drawing an inference not sustained by the content of the statement.

 

If, prior to 1978, the Brethren prayed for direction as to whether the restriction should be removed and they experienced a collective "stupor of thought" (to use a familiar scriptural idiom), that strikes me as a "no" answer.

 

Well, actually I agree with you.  My personal belief is that the Lord saw the deficiency in the White Americans being able to reconcile themselves to be equals with the African Americans, and rather than have a mass exodus of White Supremacists from the Church, He allowed the practice to continue until the culture had changed to the point that such an exodus was unthinkable.  Had the ban been lifted under Pres. McKay it would have been smack dab in the middle of the American Civil Rights struggle which was being condemned by certain Apostles as being inspired by the Communists.  Not exactly the best timing for a change,  even had Joseph Fielding Smith or Harold B. Lee been inclined to even consider lifting the ban which they weren't, had they lifted the ban prior to Pres. Kimball it would have looked like they were responding to cultural pressure rather inspiration -- and the Church abhors the idea of looking like it is negotiating with activists -- so 1978 makes sense especially since the ban was about to blow up in their face down in Brazil.