BlueDreams Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) Actually, I think there is a glitch in the recording, as it drops a "not" at about 29:43. She says (speaking of her pending disciplinary council): "What this means for Ordain Women, I'm not quite sure yet. I that we're going to continue. I know that I am (GARBLED) going to resign from the leadership of the organization, and that everyone in the organization supports me. I think it's important to note that not one single person has removed their profile from the site, and I think for me personally that's very touching." I listened to this live, and I recall her saying that she is "not going to resign." Thanks, -Smac I'll take your word for it then considering I can't find a better recording of it. That said, I'm pretty sure that was Juliann's assumption as well considering the context of where she said it (that she was in partial compliance with the DC and that she was disagreeing that she has less of a chance than Dehlin) Edited June 15, 2014 by BlueDreams
Tacenda Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 He had said that he is pursuing his doctorate in counseling - or maybe that is what I read. I have learned by sad experience to not listen to what people say, but what they do. Dehlin, quite often, tends to spin a story rather than just tell the facts. He is not alone in this behavior, but he has certainly mastered it.He pretty much near completed his schooling as a counselor. He counsels already up near Utah State somewhere.
Storm Rider Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 He pretty much near completed his schooling as a counselor. He counsels already up near Utah State somewhere. He is a doctoral student, but I have read nothing that indicates he specializes in severe depression, which was alluded to above. Regardless, this has nothing to do with his main work of MS.
Rivers Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 I think John Dehlin is a great guy and I admire all the help he is providing to people. Some of his podcasts have even helped me out. But I wouldn't argue that he hasn't crossed the line with some of his statements. Though I really hope he doesn't get excommunicated.
Bikeemikey Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 Wow.There's a lot of malice in that blog, and even a threat or two for those who are doing things Colvin doesn't like. She's a little scary.I grew up in the church with her. She's not scary at all... It is an excellent response!
Bikeemikey Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 His "reasons to stay in the church," as you call them, consist (among other things) in ways to rationalise lying in interviews. Furthermore, that piece of window-dressing is something he stopped doing. He brags to his anti-Mormon buds that many more people have left the Church than stayed because of his efforts.Regards,PahoranThat must be what he told you... I guess you are one of his anti-mormon buds.I've always wondered why your comments and thoughts are so offensive to my mormon sensibilities... Now I know. 1
Mystery Meat Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 This thread is getting ugly. Sadly, I helped get it there. I apologize for adding to the contention. I hope all have a happy Father's day. I love the Church. I love the Prophets and Apostles. I think they are called by the God whom I love above all. He trusted them enough to lead His Church to put them in this position. I think we should too. 2
mnn727 Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 Money's not an issue, apparently she is helping someone.Money is an issue, as she mentioned she can't afford to go back. or rather it appears to me that it doesn't fit her agenda to go back since it appears the OW org is willing to make donations.
JLHPROF Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 I just heard a "delicious" rumor that the Church is removing the one-year waiting period so couples can get married in front of non-member friends and family and then be sealed immediately thereafter in the temple. This was originally reported in SLT back in February ( I bring this up in this thread for two reasons: (1) I am accused (perhaps rightly) of being critical of our beloved leaders so I wanted to be the first to say, "Praise to the Man!" This is inspired prophetic leadership that gives me great confidence that our church is being led by true men of God. And I mean it! Allowing the families and friends of recent converts to share in part of the blessed event will avoid the hard feelings that sometimes resulted in the past. Hallelujah! You go, boys! (2) It might be a coincidence but this change is coming on the heels of a massive letter-writing campaign urging this new policy. This should serve as evidence that it can be helpful to the church for members to mobilize, organize and agitate for change. It would seem that starting a popular podcast or organizing a protest (and criminal trespass) during GC weekend might not be the most effective ways to get those changes enacted. However, it does show that our wonderfully-inspired leaders are not completely averse to a little "ark steadying" from time to time.Is it really so difficult to differentiate between a God given rule, principle or law and what is simply a regulation of the Church organization?Changing this regulation is hardly the same thing as changing a principle revealed by revelation.Comparing this administrative change with removing the priesthood ban, labeling homosexuality as sinful, or ordaining women is a bad analogy.
mnn727 Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) Perhaps its once again time to separate the wheat from the tares. Its already happened a number of times in the modern Church. You can not walk a path to both the tree of life and the great and spacious building at the same time. There is just no path that takes you to both places. For those of you desiring the approval of the people in the building while still on the path, know that you will never be able to get their approval, this is just one small attempt in a long list of past and future attempts to get you to let go of the iron rod and head towards them. I have found through time/age and hopefully a bit of wisdom, that in areas I may have disagreed with the Brethren about, that it has been I who was wrong. Edited June 15, 2014 by mnn727 3
Tacenda Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 Money is an issue, as she mentioned she can't afford to go back. or rather it appears to me that it doesn't fit her agenda to go back since it appears the OW org is willing to make donations.If my ears weren't playing tricks she explicitly said it wasn't the money.
Duncan Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) If my ears weren't playing tricks she explicitly said it wasn't the money. I was going to say a Lawyer complaining about money? only in...never mind!!! Edited June 15, 2014 by Duncan
Bikeemikey Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 Perhaps its once again time to separate the wheat from the tares. Its already happened a number of times in the modern Church.You can not walk a path to both the tree of life and the great and spacious building at the same time. There is just no path that takes you to both places.For those of you desiring the approval of the people in the building while still on the path, know that you will never be able to get their approval, this is just one small attempt in a long list of past and future attempts to get you to let go of the iron rod and head towards them.I have found through time/age and hopefully a bit of wisdom, that in areas I may have disagreed with the Brethren about, that it has been I who was wrong.Great now let's determine who the wheat and who the tares are in this scenario.All your comment succeeds in doing is being obnoxious and moving the target of the conversation to a different set of diametrically opposed positions.
mnn727 Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 Great now let's determine who the wheat and who the tares are in this scenario.All your comment succeeds in doing is being obnoxious and moving the target of the conversation to a different set of diametrically opposed positions.Perhaps you need to do a bit of history study about the Church, those that follow the Brethren are not going to go wrong.Whereas those who follow the world............ 1
mnn727 Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) Perhaps you need to do a bit of history study about the Church, those that follow the Brethren are not going to go wrong. Whereas those who follow the world............And if you think following the Brethren is the wrong thing to do, perhaps you are in the wrong Church. I'm real sorry if that offends the people of the world. I stand by my statement 100%. John 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. See also D&C 86 Edited June 15, 2014 by mnn727 3
mormonnewb Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) Perhaps you need to do a bit of history study about the Church, those that follow the Brethren are not going to go wrong.Whereas those who follow the world............Never mind. Edited June 15, 2014 by mormonnewb
Stone holm Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 Given the way the OW discussions were pitched with suggesting the use of ward resources among other things, I am not surprised about that one.With Dehlin I've been surprised it is taken this long, but his leaders know him better and perhaps they saw a greater appropriate desire towards staying connected than I do (he seemed to me to want to stay connected not because of belief but because he wanted to change things).When a person has invested most of their life to a faith, there tends to be a desire to stay connected. Sometimes the person' s beliefs may have drifted away from the mainline talking points, but they still feel connected, in other cases the Church may have drifted away from them , but they still feel connected. I remember back in the early 80's when the Church changed the guidelines to allow membership challenges if the member joined another Church, I was organizing on a Stake wide basis to lean some terminally in actives off the rolls. Then Elder Faust attended our Stake and in response to a Bishop's question about it said, " oh, I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to do that, after all it's just sort of like joining Kiwanis". If a fired up Stake President turns Kate Kelly or John Dehlin into a martyr, it will not be helpful. I'm not surprised that a Stake President is going after either of them, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was with the blessing of a mid level authority. Is it a good idea? Maybe, maybe not, but by going public with it they have it difficult for all Mormons to duck the paint brush if the Church does go nuclear with them, and I suspect it would entice some members to seek exit from the Church.
The Nehor Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 Great now let's determine who the wheat and who the tares are in this scenario. You light them on fire. If they burn they are wheat. If they survive they are tares and must be thrown into a wood-chipper.
sethpayne Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 Perhaps you need to do a bit of history study about the Church, those that follow the Brethren are not going to go wrong.Whereas those who follow the world............ Yep. If Church history shows us anything, it is that Church leaders have never erred.
Duncan Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 Yep. If Church history shows us anything, it is that Church leaders have never erred. in my mind follow the brethren isn't the same as following a leader but leaders. So, Pres. Young can talk about Giraffes being sold to make glitter whereas Erastus Snow may have a different opinion. But if we get what they are saying collectively, we'll turn out allright 4
mfbukowski Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) I just heard a "delicious" rumor that the Church is removing the one-year waiting period so couples can get married in front of non-member friends and family and then be sealed immediately thereafter in the temple. This was originally reported in SLT back in February ( I bring this up in this thread for two reasons: (1) I am accused (perhaps rightly) of being critical of our beloved leaders so I wanted to be the first to say, "Praise to the Man!" This is inspired prophetic leadership that gives me great confidence that our church is being led by true men of God. And I mean it! Allowing the families and friends of recent converts to share in part of the blessed event will avoid the hard feelings that sometimes resulted in the past. Hallelujah! You go, boys! (2) It might be a coincidence but this change is coming on the heels of a massive letter-writing campaign urging this new policy. This should serve as evidence that it can be helpful to the church for members to mobilize, organize and agitate for change. It would seem that starting a popular podcast or organizing a protest (and criminal trespass) during GC weekend might not be the most effective ways to get those changes enacted. However, it does show that our wonderfully-inspired leaders are not completely averse to a little "ark steadying" from time to time.I get up every morning just before sunrise and chant and scream and shout at the sun, to wake it up. It works every time! You have me to thank for that every day the sun rises. This change has been discussed for at least 30 years that I am aware of, but of course I have only been in the church for 30 years. It was mentioned when I got sealed as a new convert with no one from my family able to witness my sealing. If you go back and research the topic even on this board, it has been discussed here as long as the board has existed. Edited June 16, 2014 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 All's I know is what I read in the papers ... http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/57531159-180/temple-lds-mormon-policy.html.cspMaybe that's the problem. 3
mfbukowski Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 Yes, it's the latter.Mister Dehlin's self-appointed mission in life is to sucker the weak, drag on the hands that hang down, and weaken the feeble knees.Regards,PahoranDang, dude you have a way with words!
mfbukowski Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 Okay, so the church of mormonnewb of lds would allow everyone into the temple to see their relative get married. This would include apostates, nonmembers, etc. Right? And the church of mormonnewb which depends on divine revelation would allow its members to challenge such divine revelation through letter writing campaigns. Right?Hey how about some pictures on the internet of the happy couple at the altar? I mean after all, everyone has camera phones nowadays! Wouldn't that be spiffy?
mfbukowski Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 Don't you wish that you were like mormonnewb? It is so easy to keep tearing something down. My gosh if I were a critic or like mormonnewb my internet life would be much more easy. If I became a critic, I would be a great critic. I would moan about this and groan about that. I would go on and on and on about the same old things and cause people to defend the church's belief system. So much stress could be released this way. But alas, here I am defending the church like you. Sad. This is the second insulting derail about another poster from you today. Thread ban.Which unfortunately he cannot see. That will teach him! 1
Recommended Posts