Scott Lloyd Posted February 17, 2015 Author Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Humm…I wonder if a postit on the side of a phone like that would not fade too much to read….I think it would, so even a phone like that no go. I think the only viable option is Scott to tattoo it on his stomach so he can read it every time he takes a shower and thus will remember it in 2055 if he is still physically and mentally with us…and even if he is not mentally with us, his caregiver can read it for him and follow through on it as well. PostIt notes and stomach tattoos don't count down the time and sound alarms. Over 10 years ago, on the old ZLMB board, a poster named BriansPro predicted that the Church within 10 years from then would have mainstreamed itself so much it would be indistinguishable from any Protestant sect. I copied his post into my Palm PDA and set an alarm for 10 years in the future. The prediction never came true, of course. But by the time the deadline came and went, Palm had stopped supporting its devices and gone out of business. I had discontinued using my PDA and moved to an iPod touch. So I missed commenting when the deadline came. Oh well, I had lost touch with BriansPro before then anyway. Edited to add: I found a link to a thread on this board where I talked about it. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/53113-is-the-church-sometimes-influenced-by-the-philosophies-of-men/page-3 My post back then shows the deadline was Feb. 20, 2014, nearly a year ago. The Church is no closer to mainstreaming or changing than it was in 2004, when BriansPro made his prediction. BriansPro, where are you and what say you? YE FALSE PROGNOSTICATORS, YOUR WORDS WILL COME TO NAUGHT. THERE SHALL COME A DAY OF RECKONING, AND I WILL FIND YOU! Edited February 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Robert F. Smith Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 I prophesy that in 40 years no one will remember Dehlin's prophecy and few will remember Dehlin himself.However, the name "Nehor" will still be known far and wide.
california boy Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (Emphasis mine) I think it's fairly obvious that california boy meant to say prediction here and that, like most of us from time to time, he was the victim of an overly energetic auto-fill function. Still, it is a striking coincidence.CV75Don't be so fatalistic! Yesh it was a typo. Interesting that some here think I am headed to be a son of perdition because I choose the very human condition to share my life with someoeone that I love completely. And yet some are so surprised when they wonder why gay members don't feel welcome in the church.
rockpond Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 And yet you did tell Scott that the things he says on this topic have been pushing your closer and closer to leaving the Church, knowing how much Scott values Church membership ... which, as I asserted earlier, is a textbook example of emotional blackmail ... and the thread did go almost completely silent until someone pointed it out. It was a statement of fact. If Scott cares about church membership than it seems he would want to know.
rockpond Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 As I said, I was being facetious. I used the word prophecy once, in the thread title as an attention-getter. It was tongue-in-cheek, similar to what DBMormon did when he (rather cleverly) called himself "Billtradomis" a few posts ago. I wasn't saying Dehlin was setting himself up as a prophet in the sense of a prophet of God; I think most readers of average-or-better intelligence would be able to recognize that. I admit to having a bit of fun with the "Dehlinions" coinage. But your statement here is quite a stretch. Well, I never said you were successful at it. The tactic has never really worked with me. As it turns out, Hamba was applying a term coined by psychotherapist Susan Froward, associated with the acronymn FOG (standing for fear, obligation and guilt). It just seemed apt to me. But don't feel singled out; it's something I've observed for a long time with critics who combat the Church's defenders. You seemed to fit the pattern with the not-so-veiled implication that my interaction with you on this thread was driving you toward apostasy. The disdain on these boards for Dehlin is palpable so you'll have to pardon me for not seeing your repeated comments about Dehlin as nothing more than facetiousness. (Bill mocked himself, not someone else.) As I said earlier, "FOG" is used all over these boards, by both critics (which there aren't many of here) and by the Church's defenders (among them, you and I). And to clarify my statement, what often drives me and others like me "closer to the door" (not apostasy) is attitudes expressed towards those who view the gospel differently, toward those who doubt, toward those who have different hopes for our gay brothers and sisters. You can call it "emotional blackmail" but the reality still exists.
rockpond Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 What is unclear about what I said in my two prior posts quoted above? Answer the CFR -- or admit that you can't. I retract my statement. You have made it clear that you believe growth and retention are vital to the Church. I must have misinterpreted your previous remarks when we discussed issues surrounding retention and the steadily declining growth rate of the church. At some future point when that topic comes back up, it's good to know that you agree with me that growth and retention are vital. And, knowing that you feel that way, it seems you'd want to know about one of the things that is leading to our loss of members.
rockpond Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Whether or not prejudice was present is an issue separate and apart from whether or not it was God who decreed that the priesthood would be temporarily withheld from certain of and ultimately granted to all of God's worthy sons. It's a separate issue if it was God who decreed it.
rockpond Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 I'm saying that, as with other things that Brother Brigham reportedly said on occasion, it's hard to pin down his meaning. I'm not obliged to accept your interpretation of it as the definitive word any more than I am anybody else's. He could have been saying that they would receive the priesthood in a day when the restored gospel had attained a global reach -- which is pretty much how things transpired. I'm also saying that Spencer W. Kimball, as quoted in OD2, obviously did not agree with the interpretation you are determined to put on Brigham Young's words. I regard President Kimball as a prophet too. Do I regard rockpond as a prophet? Sorry, no. Not in this instance. (Notwithstanding my facetious thread title.) We don't really know what interpretation President Kimball put on President Young's words. And you certainly should never regard me as a prophet. I actually think it is pretty clear what Brigham Young meant. But if it doesn't seem that way to others, that's fine. I just don't think we can continue to use that little statement by BY as the reason why the race ban and the gay ban are impossible to compare.
USU78 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 And, knowing that you feel that way, it seems you'd want to know about one of the things that is leading to our loss of members. "And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein."
rockpond Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 "And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein." Perfect illustration.
USU78 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Perfect illustration. Take it up with Isaiah.
USU78 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Take it up with Isaiah. Or the Master: "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. "
rockpond Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Take it up with Isaiah. Or the Master: "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. " I'm not disputing the truth of either statement.
USU78 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 I'm not disputing the truth of either statement. Then why be annoyed that some folks, finding Church doctrine hard or unlivable, leave? Your statement: And, knowing that you feel that way, it seems you'd want to know about one of the things that is leading to our loss of members. implies that somebody in the Church is doing something wrong and should be stopped, since somebody or a bunch of somebodies is leaving or threatening to leave.
rockpond Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Then why be annoyed that some folks, finding Church doctrine hard or unlivable, leave? Your statement: implies that somebody in the Church is doing something wrong and should be stopped, since somebody or a bunch of somebodies is leaving or threatening to leave. There are plenty of things that we are all doing wrong that we could all do better to make the church stronger.
USU78 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 There are plenty of things that we are all doing wrong that we could all do better to make the church stronger. That's no answer. An appeal to existential guilt is not useful.
rockpond Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 That's no answer. An appeal to existential guilt is not useful. Hmmm.. I didn't think that was an appeal to existential guilt. But you did ask this question: "Then why be annoyed that some folks, finding Church doctrine hard or unlivable, leave?" I'm not annoyed that some folks find Church doctrine hard or unlivable. I'm concerned that we lose members. I'm concerned about the reasons why we lose members. I'm concerned about how people use the term "Church doctrine". But I'm not annoyed when people leave.
USU78 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Hmmm.. I didn't think that was an appeal to existential guilt. But you did ask this question: "Then why be annoyed that some folks, finding Church doctrine hard or unlivable, leave?" I'm not annoyed that some folks find Church doctrine hard or unlivable. I'm concerned that we lose members. I'm concerned about the reasons why we lose members. I'm concerned about how people use the term "Church doctrine". But I'm not annoyed when people leave. "Concerned," then. Why is it not of greater concern when jd, and Paul Toscano before him, catalog grievances and induce people to leave, whereupon their membership is put in play by priesthood authorities? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 17, 2015 Author Posted February 17, 2015 There are plenty of things that we are all doing wrong that we could all do better to make the church stronger.Renouncing or soft-pedaling divine law is not one of those things. That would, in fact, make the Church weaker in the divine scheme of things. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 17, 2015 Author Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) I retract my statement. You have made it clear that you believe growth and retention are vital to the Church. I must have misinterpreted your previous remarks when we discussed issues surrounding retention and the steadily declining growth rate of the church. At some future point when that topic comes back up, it's good to know that you agree with me that growth and retention are vital. And, knowing that you feel that way, it seems you'd want to know about one of the things that is leading to our loss of members.While it may be cause for sadness or disappointment that some individuals would choose to leave or stay away because Church leaders uphold principle, it is not a cause for hand-wringing. Such a thing has been prophesied, in fact -- and illustrated in the parable of the sower and in Lehi's dream. As I said before, I am optimistic enough to believe the Church will grow and prosper without its leaders having to compromise on principle. Edited February 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted February 17, 2015 Author Posted February 17, 2015 It's a separate issue if it was God who decreed it.It's a separate issue in any case; no one has definitively established that God did not decree it.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 17, 2015 Author Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) We don't really know what interpretation President Kimball put on President Young's words. It is clear you believe President Young was saying no black person could ever be ordained to the priesthood until every other man ever to be born into mortality had been offered that privilege. Obviously, President Kimball did not believe that, or he would not by his own account have spent many hours in the Upper Room of the Salt Lake Temple praying for revelation. I actually think it is pretty clear what Brigham Young meant. But if it doesn't seem that way to others, that's fine. I just don't think we can continue to use that little statement by BY as the reason why the race ban and the gay ban are impossible to compare. In my observation, it is those who want to rationalize the repeal of the law of chastity who try to use the Brigham Young quote to bolster their reasoning. Edited February 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
JLHPROF Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 It is clear you believe President Young was saying no black person could ever be ordained to the priesthood until every man ever to be born into mortality had been offered that privilege. Obviously, President Kimball did not believe that, or he would not by his own account spent many hours in the Upper Room of the Salt Lake Temple praying for revelation. Or maybe like the Ordain women group, and the SSM group, and the "whatever my hobby horse" group think, despite the teaching of his predecessor Pres. Kimball thought he could convince God to change his mind or will.And he was apparently right.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 In my observation, it is those who want to rationalize the repeal of the law of chastity who try to use the Brigham Young quote to bolster their reasoning.We have a winner.
stemelbow Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Dehlin's timing is off. It'll be sooner. 1
Recommended Posts