Jana Riess Directly, Openly And Publicly Opposes Elder Nelson

[SmileyMcGee]

I'm asking how you know that the brethren can't be reasoned with and how you know that they consider themselves above "scrutiny and criticism." Your post sounded as if you know these things. I'm asking how you know this, or is it mearly your opinion.

Clearly it is my opinion.

[SmileyMcGee]

I only proved your point if you are narcissistic enough to imagine that only your criticism and scrutiny matter and voila, here we are.

I'm not sure why you think that. I feel like you are misrepresenting my argument...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Clearly it is my opinion.

Apparently it is not all that clear.

[The Nehor]

I'm not sure why you think that. I feel like you are misrepresenting my argument...

 

It's possible but only if you presented it so badly that any reasonable person would misunderstand and then misrepresent it.

[smac97]

I suspect we'll at some time see the accusation in the OP's title, to be found in another of Smac's bullet point listings of actionables against a Latter-day Saint.

 

There's been alot of derail in this thread away from the title's statement, which was the point to get across.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "Smac's bullet point listings of actionables against a Latter-day Saint."  Can you clarify that?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Senator]

I'm not sure what you mean by "Smac's bullet point listings of actionables against a Latter-day Saint."  Can you clarify that?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

Lists of actions that may fit the definition of apostacy and therefore church discipline is warrantable.

[DBMormon]

Scott I would welcome a serious answer to the following

 

Scott Lloyd, on 21 Aug 2014 - 3:04 PM, said:

From the Elder Christofferson talk:

 

The unanimity and consistency with which the apostles and prophets have repeatedly expressed themselves on the subject of the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman tells me that the Savior has indeed revealed His will to them.

Is that the same with Inter-racial marriage being sin and Blacks being less valiant? because that too was a view spoken of often and by many in a prior generation.  just asking?

 

Scott could you also provide a reference to prove your point by actually answering my question

Scott Lloyd, on 21 Aug 2014 - 3:17 PM, said:

I would be extremely surprised if you could produce any indication from Elder Christofferson or others of the Twelve that indicates he or they disagree with their Brethren on the subject of the definition of marriage.

 

The very notion is difficult-to-impossible to take seriously.

I would like you to provide a statement in the 1940's that shows "any indication from others of the Twelve that indicates  or they disagree with their Brethren on the subject of blacks being less valiant?".

 

 

BOANERGES - Do you disagree?  and if so why with the below thought I had in response to your comment?

Boanerges, on 21 Aug 2014 - 3:08 PM, said:

 Ah, but they are not necessarily unanimous. Look at which of them have not spoken on the issue (Including Elder Christofferson).

agreed.  Do we have all 15 men saying the same thing? if not according to Elder Anderson it is not doctrine and according to Elder Christofferson, hence not binding on the Church.  Elder Christofferson has a gay brother and is very sensitive to this issue.  I would love to hear his feelings on the matter?

 

 

NEHOR, Are you actually assuming the view of blacks being less valiant was a minority opinion in the 1940's?

The Nehor, on 21 Aug 2014 - 5:12 PM, said:

Actually they were taught sporadically and by only a few of the apostles at best. Nice try though.

actually we have a frist presidency statement from the brethren declaring such.  It is not a minority belief among the brethren at least not in the 1940's

 

 

Thanks, as I often find when good answers are lacking we avoid the questions all together.

Edited August 22, 2014 by DBMormon

[Scott Lloyd]

I suspect we'll at some time see the accusation in the OP's title, to be found in another of Smac's bullet point listings of actionables against a Latter-day Saint.

 

There's been alot of derail in this thread away from the title's statement, which was the point to get across.

Part of the derail is your own post here.

 

Until you brought it up, there was no talk of discipline against Jana Riess or anyone else, and until you called him out, Smac had not contributed so much as one post to this thread.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott I would welcome a serious answer to the following

 

I prefer not to get drawn down a rabbit hole.

 

If you want to start yet another discussion about the origin and history of the priesthood ban or your prognostications about sexual sin at some point in the future being declared not sin and sanctified in the temple, start another thread for that purpose.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

Lists of actions that may fit the definition of apostacy and therefore church discipline is warrantable.

 

Can you point me to where I have published such lists?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Senator]

Part of the derail is your own post here.

 

Until you brought it up, there was no talk of discipline against Jana Riess or anyone else, and until you called him out, Smac had not contributed so much as one post to this thread.

 

I'm derailing your post by my speaking to the intent, purpose and meaning of the accusation in the actual OP headline?

 

Go figure.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Senator

[SmileyMcGee]

Apparently it is not all that clear.

I guess it wasn't to some.

[SmileyMcGee]

It's possible but only if you presented it so badly that any reasonable person would misunderstand and then misrepresent it.

Maybe, I don't know though.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm derailing your post by my speaking to the intent, purpose and meaning of the accusation in the actual OP headline?

 

Go figure.

Nothing in the thread title or anywhere else in the thread calls for Church discipline of anyone.

[Senator]

Can you point me to where I have published such lists?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

Of course you'll never define your lists as such. So I won't bother.

 

However, to me, your lists against OW and KK clearly came accross as prosecutor making his case.

 

And you did it very well.

[DBMormon]

I prefer not to get drawn down a rabbit hole.

 

If you want to start yet another discussion about the origin and history of the priesthood ban or your prognostications about sexual sin being at some point in the future being declared not sin and sanctified in the temple, start another thread for that purpose.

I care not to start a thread on either, I was just hoping you could defend the points you make.   If not, no problem

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I care not to start a thread on either, I was just hoping you could defend the points you make.   If not, no problem

Oh, that's what you were doing.

[Scott Lloyd]

I care not to start a thread on either, I was just hoping you could defend the points you make.   If not, no problem

I leave it to the individual reader to determine for him/herself whether I've adequately sustained my points. I stand by what I've written here.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

Oh, that's what you were doing.

 

actually.... yes.  In these discussion boards, we have people who will stridently defend the Church and it's actions no matter what, even when it was likely wrong.  In defending those points they draw their logic from certain ideas that sound really good.  Once a flaw is pointed out or once and exception is found that show their logc is flawed, they either call names or they abandon answering the questions.  I think the two points and questions I made to Scott were good and deserve a rebuttal.  His ignoring them indicates a good answer is lacking in my mind.

 

Edited to add: I don't think the Church is necessarily wrong or that Scott is on LGBT issues, only that his logic defending his points is severely flawed in my opinion. 

Edited August 22, 2014 by DBMormon

[Scott Lloyd]

Edited to add: I don't think the Church is necessarily wrong or that Scott is on LGBT issues, only that his logic defending his points is severely flawed in my opinion. 

Well, apparently in your world, a great many things are "seriously flawed" or "severely flawed," including Joseph Smith's character. So, perhaps I am in pretty good company.

[DBMormon]

Well, apparently in your world, a great many things are "seriously flawed" or "severely flawed," including Joseph Smith's character. So, perhaps I am in pretty good company.

Again, Terryl Givens said the same thing, a comment you also did not respond to.  I am ok with prophets being severely flawed.  Noah was a drunkard, Abaraham lied in a big way, Brigham Young was a racist, Elisha wished harm on some teenagers mocking him..... no biggie.

 

Of course, your deflecting rather than answering the questions.... but I expected as much

Edited August 22, 2014 by DBMormon

[smac97]

Of course you'll never define your lists as such. So I won't bother.

Funny, that. Make an accusation, then refuse to substantiate it.

 

However, to me, your lists against OW and KK clearly came accross as prosecutor making his case.

 

And you did it very well.

My comments about the OW group and Kate Kelly have been specific to what they have actually done. And I have specifically and repeatedly abstained from speculating about what "action" would be appropriate in response to those actions. That is not our province.

So to sum up: I have not made any comments which could reasonably be described as "bullet point listings of actionables against a Latter-day Saint," and you are refusing to substantiate this claim.

Thanks,

-Smac

[AndyDnom]

she should be excommunicated, according to mormon doctrine, and precedent.

[Mystery Meat]

agreed.  Do we have all 15 men saying the same thing? if not according to Elder Anderson it is not doctrine and according to Elder Christofferson, hence not binding on the Church.  Elder Christofferson has a gay brother and is very sensitive to this issue.  I would love to hear his feelings on the matter?

 

 

Look up in the thread. Scott provided a link to a statement from Elder Christofferson joining others in the twelve condeming homosexuality as a sin and an unchangeable law.

[Scott Lloyd]

she should be excommunicated, according to mormon doctrine, and precedent.

As thread originator, I will ask that everyone refrain from commentary about the prospects that any individual will be subject to Church discipline. I've not engaged in such, and that was never my intent in starting this thread.