Myth And False Traditions In The Church

[sdc999]

ERayR,  I cannot begin to tell you how thankful I am that you are not my accountant.   

 

And I am totally grateful that you are not my client.

See there board.  ERayR and I can agree, why can't everybody else agree?  

[ERayR]

See there board.  ERayR and I can agree, why can't everybody else agree?  

 

They are just unreasonable.

[Duncan]

It is amazing how much time we spend debating whether/how we should live the lowest temporal laws (tithing, word of wisdom, etc).

 

You'd think considering we have the Melchezidek priesthood and all the keys are on the earth that we would be working on some slightly loftier principles...

 

But no, it's more fun to argue whether herbal tea is a sin or whether to pay tithing on a tax refund, or whether God wants us to wear white shirts to Church or take the sacrament with the right hand (if able).

 

God must seriously roll his eyes at us most of the time and wonder if we will ever move to even a Terrestrial level.

 

 

Like it says on DC 117:8, that you should covet that which is but the drop, and neglect the more weighty matters?

[Alan]

In my view sdc999 has a point, though not quite the one he/she is trying to make.

The way to calculate tithing is not a mystery. The JST Genesis reference to Abraham's tithe makes it very clear.

But the leadership (general and local) have permitted alternative practices and teachings to go uncorrected for so many years now that to issue a correction at this stage would likely result in many ex-members, and some current ones, seeking legal redress against the church.

[Kenngo1969]

SDC999:

 

"Monson" this ...  And "Monson" that ... and accusing leaders of acting in bad faith ...

 

But, no, you want to be seen as a voice of reason and to be taken seriously.

 

I'm sure everybody else on the Board will have no problem doing that.

 

Good luck with that.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[DBMormon]

 I wasn't paying too much attention, skimmed your post, and thought it read, "no pornography in the chapel . . "

that seems like a logical rule as well

[DBMormon]

Obviously, I've been an exception to the rule.

 

In the instance with Elder Ballard, he personally invited us to come cover the event, and that contemplated shooting photos as well as reporting the proceedings. Over the years, he has been very conscientious about keeping us informed of his doings that might have general interest and that ought to be brought to the attention of Church members.

 

In the instance with Elder Jensen (whom I count as a personal friend), I'm quite certain he was aware of my presence and intent.

 

In both cases, Correlation, which is tasked with ensuring compliance with Church policy, among other things, and whose representatives know the handbook as well as anyone, raised nary a question about our publication of photos of the respective events when they routinely vetted our content prior to publication.

 

To borrow phrasing from the New Testament, I guess the handbook was made for man and not man for the handbook.

 

I would want this generally understood lest, in the future, some handbook-bound Pharisee should try to hinder me from doing my job.

Did they ever actually ask you to take pictures?  If not is it possible you made a leap that was not there and you actually broke rules?  To assume you have permission when it was never explicitly given is dangerous right?

[Scott Lloyd]

Did they ever actually ask you to take pictures?  If not is it possible you made a leap that was not there and you actually broke rules?  To assume you have permission when it was never explicitly given is dangerous right?

No, our relationship is such that it is not possible in these instances that I "made a leap" and "broke the rules."

 

These are just examples. We routinely cover (non-sacrament-meeting) events in meetinghouse chapels involving General Authorities and have been doing it for a long time. If they had wanted to forbid it, they would have explicitly said so. Even after the fact, if it had been frowned upon, Correlation would never have permitted the publication of the photos and we would have been stringently instructed never to do such a thing again. As I said, Correlation knows the handbook better than you, I or probably anyone in the Church.

 

The written policy is as you have said it is; I grant that. I just want you to realize there have been and will be exceptions from time to time.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

In my view sdc999 has a point, though not quite the one he/she is trying to make.

The way to calculate tithing is not a mystery. The JST Genesis reference to Abraham's tithe makes it very clear.

But the leadership (general and local) have permitted alternative practices and teachings to go uncorrected for so many years now that to issue a correction at this stage would likely result in many ex-members, and some current ones, seeking legal redress against the church.

(Bold face added for reference.)

 

But it has been shown that Grudunza and I have what I deem to be a reasonable disagreement over the interpretation of that passage.

 

The clearest instruction I know of is the one from the First Presidency that I have quoted. And their formal directive always trumps scripture whenever necessary.

[Grudunza]

(Bold face added for reference.)

 

But it has been shown that Grudunza and I have what I deem to be a reasonable disagreement over the interpretation of that passage.

 

The clearest instruction I know of is the one from the First Presidency that I have quoted. And their formal directive always trumps scripture whenever necessary.

 

And I would agree that Scott's interpretation of that passage could be a valid one, the way it's worded.  But to me, JST specifically adding that part seems meant to clarify its intent.  Why add to what the KJV says if it's not related to what he paid the tithing from?  The vast majority of people are given more than that which we have need of, so there's no real point in adding that phrase, otherwise.  That interpretation also harmonizes with D&C 119 (a "standing law forever"), which describes surplus tithing, and which many in the early church understood and practiced that way.  It's also in harmony to me with a fair and just and logical God who would not burden the poor or expect us to pay tithing when we can't feed our families or pay rent, and which comports evenly across all countries and tax rates and such. 

As others have said about the 1970 statement, "income" can mean different things, and ultimately they tell us to figure it out between ourselves and God.  But inasmuch as they tied their statement to the D&C verses, interpreting "increase" (which at the time meant what's left over) as being understood to be "income," then that was putting a 1970 definition of "increase" onto an 1830's meaning, as if we would read about someone in the 1950's referring to someone else as "gay" and assume they must have meant "homosexual."  To me, the one thing that their statement of "income" cannot mean is gross income, because that can skew so heavily to different amounts depending on families' circumstances and tax rates.  There are situations where paying on gross would necessitate debt and cause failure to pay landlords and such, which would be in conflict with many scriptures and principles counseling against such.  I find points of dissonance and disparity between the idea of paying gross and what makes logical sense, therefore I conclude that cannot be what they meant.  But ultimately they left it between me and God and you and God, so if I feel in harmony with His spirit about that, then I'm good, and allow others the same for their interpretation.  

Edited February 24, 2015 by Grudunza

[Que]

 

"that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life. But the cisterns which you [the Jews] have dug for yourselves are broken and profitless to you. For what is the use of that baptism which cleanses the flesh and body alone? (Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho Chapter XIV)

 

Back to the baptism thing, based on my reading (FWIW) it is my understanding that the leap taken by John is that "his" baptism was understood by the Saints to not only purify the flesh but also to symbolize cleansing from sin - a spiritual metaphor rather than merely a physical preparation for a task...

 

In Justin's comment we see where he acknowledges that the Jews were bathing and even perhaps immersing in water, so John's version would not have seemed strange to the Jews, but the Jews were likely unhappy about the metaphorical, spiritual application.

 

In our modern perspective we would also see (at least I do) that this spiritual application to the washing was a restoration, not a novel innovation. It is even possible that the Jews kept the Temple washing and threw the whole forgiveness and atonement application (that dated back to Adam) out with the baptism water...

 

Just my thoughts - Q

[sdc999]

No, our relationship is such that it is not possible in these instances that I "made a leap" and "broke the rules."

 

These are just examples. We routinely cover (non-sacrament-meeting) events in meetinghouse chapels involving General Authorities and have been doing it for a long time. If they had wanted to forbid it, they would have explicitly said so. Even after the fact, if it had been frowned upon, Correlation would never have permitted the publication of the photos and we would have been stringently instructed never to do such a thing again. As I said, Correlation knows the handbook better than you, I or probably anyone in the Church.

 

The written policy is as you have said it is; I grant that. I just want you to realize there have been and will be exceptions from time to time.

Scott, you have hit the nail on the head with your statement.  "...they would have explicitly said so."  Again, if there are so many different understandings then they have failed to be explicit in their expectations.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, you have hit the nail on the head with your statement.  "...they would have explicitly said so."  Again, if there are so many different understandings then they have failed to be explicit in their expectations.  

I'm fairly certain that you have taken my words out of context, but I'll ask you: Different understandings about what?

[DBMormon]

No, our relationship is such that it is not possible in these instances that I "made a leap" and "broke the rules."

 

These are just examples. We routinely cover (non-sacrament-meeting) events in meetinghouse chapels involving General Authorities and have been doing it for a long time. If they had wanted to forbid it, they would have explicitly said so. Even after the fact, if it had been frowned upon, Correlation would never have permitted the publication of the photos and we would have been stringently instructed never to do such a thing again. As I said, Correlation knows the handbook better than you, I or probably anyone in the Church.

 

The written policy is as you have said it is; I grant that. I just want you to realize there have been and will be exceptions from time to time.

sure for instance this

http://saltlakemormontemple.com/files/2012/06/mormon-church-meeting3.jpg

 

I get that.  Just didn't seem like it was one of those instances.

 

I find it intriguing that you seem comfortable with allowing a variety of exceptions to the handbook though as I would not have figured you for that.

Edited February 25, 2015 by DBMormon

[Kaleb Webb]

Have tatoos already been mentioned?

[Scott Lloyd]

sure for instance this

http://saltlakemormontemple.com/files/2012/06/mormon-church-meeting3.jpg

 

I get that.  Just didn't seem like it was one of those instances.

 

I find it intriguing that you seem comfortable with allowing a variety of exceptions to the handbook though as I would not have figured you for that.

It's really not as complicated as you are trying to make it.

 

Because the General Authorities have proprietary control over administrative policy in the Church, they have the prerogative to allow or direct that there be exceptions to written policy on occasions when that is necessary or desirable. This might include, from time to time, allowing photographs in a chapel to accompany news coverage of an event they want publicized.

 

I'm puzzled that you seem so resistant to this idea.

[Grudunza]

It's really not as complicated as you are trying to make it.

Because the General Authorities have proprietary control over administrative policy in the Church, they have the prerogative to allow or direct that there be exceptions to written policy on occasions when that is necessary or desirable. This might include, from time to time, allowing photographs in a chapel to accompany news coverage of an event they want publicized.

I'm puzzled that you seem so resistant to this idea.

I think bishops would also have that prerogative, to make exceptions when prompted or when circumstances favor. Policy is not the same as law.

[DBMormon]

It's really not as complicated as you are trying to make it.

 

Because the General Authorities have proprietary control over administrative policy in the Church, they have the prerogative to allow or direct that there be exceptions to written policy on occasions when that is necessary or desirable. This might include, from time to time, allowing photographs in a chapel to accompany news coverage of an event they want publicized.

 

I'm puzzled that you seem so resistant to this idea.

I am not nor did I say I was. My feelings about your feelings does not reflect my other feelings

[Scott Lloyd]

I think bishops would also have that prerogative, to make exceptions when prompted or when circumstances favor. Policy is not the same as law.

Agreed.

 

But I would add the proviso or caveat that bishops don't have near the autonomy that General Authorities do. A bishop who routinely ignored what was in the handbook or who applied it capriciously would presumably be subject to correction by those in authority over him, and rightly so.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am not nor did I say I was. My feelings about your feelings does not reflect my other feelings

I've tried, but I can't make sense out of this.

[DBMormon]

I've tried, but I can't make sense out of this.

it was somewhat meant to do that.   You indicated that I was struggling with someone bending the rules of the handbook.  I do not.  I struggled seeing you individually being okay with bending the rules of the handbook as they have been used as a weapon here before defining absolutes

Edited February 28, 2015 by DBMormon

[Boanerges]

But I would add the proviso or caveat that bishops don't have near the autonomy that General Authorities do. A bishop who routinely ignored what was in the handbook or who applied it capriciously would presumably be subject to correction by those in authority over him, and rightly so.

 

I think this might depend on how far outside the valley one lives. I had a bishop who became stake president who routinely ignored the handbook and whenever he was questioned about it would simply say he was following the Spirit. As bishop, I was his counselor and I am not aware that he was ever "called on the carpet" or "correlated" on any of it. Granted most of the things were minor, but I could name a couple bigger things he did - like (as SP) authorizing someone to set someone else apart when that person really did not have the appropriate keys.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Boanerges

[busybee]

This made me think back a couple of weeks to the guy who was nearly crushed between the semis.       His quote, “I can’t express enough gratitude to the Lord for His protection in a time I felt so alone,” he says. “It has reaffirmed my faith in God, the power of a prayer, the protection that he offers His children, and the power of the garment and the priesthood which were all helping to protect me. I play the scene over and over in my mind and I can never see the situation ending the way it did without divine intervention.”

 

Now for the flip side.  I have a dead neighbor as of a week ago;  probably ever bit as devout as this man (my personal opinion).  Garment wearing, temple going great all around guy.  Great father, great husband.  Wasn't so lucky with his encounter with a semi.    

Perhaps you need to revisit the Temple and do some Initiatory work. Listen carefully.

[JLHPROF]

Perhaps you need to revisit the Temple and do some Initiatory work. Listen carefully.

 

I am always torn on this.  I had a friend who was killed yesterday working construction - forklift holding a wall basically snapped off and fell on him.  Great guy, father of 4 young kids, wearing his garments.

 

I KNOW that who lives or dies is completely up to God.  I KNOW that the garments promise protection from the attacks of the adversary which I believe can include physical protection.

 

All I can conclude from these apparent dichotomies is that God can and will take us when he chooses, but if the adversary seeks to harm us we have the protection of the garment.  And that's not contradictory.

[Kenngo1969]

I think this might depend on how far outside the valley one lives. I had a bishop who became stake president who routinely ignored the handbook and whenever he was questioned about it would simply say he was following the Spirit. As bishop, I was his counselor and I am not aware that he was ever "called on the carpet" or "correlated" on any of it. Granted most of the things were minor, but I could name a couple bigger things he did - like (as SP) authorizing someone to set someone else apart when that person really did not have the appropriate keys.

I might need further background to comment definitively, but, he has bottom-line responsibility (subject to those in authority over him) for how the ward operates, and a similar principle governs stake presidents.  As a stake president, he holds the keys: he can direct that those keys be used by someone else over whom he has stewardship to accomplish something he, himself, is authorized to do (for example, a counselor in his presidency or a high counselor can set someone apart at the president's direction).  Insofar as I know (and I welcome correction on this point), he could even authorize another Melchizedek priesthood holder (i.e., someone other than a member of the stake presidency or a member of the high council) to take such action.

 

Although the stake president, a counselor, or a high counselor could have done it, my father conferred the Melchizedek priesthood upon me and ordained me an elder ... under the stake president's direction, since the president ultimately holds the keys for everything done by virtue of the Melchizedek priesthood in his stake.  It might be a tad "unorthodox," but I don't see any reason why a stake president couldn't authorize (that is, delegate his authority to) a Melchizedek priesthood holder not in the presidency or on the high council to do something (other than a calling, a setting apart, or a Melchizedek priesthood conferral and ordination) that the stake president otherwise would be responsible to do.  In general, the most salient question isn't, "Did the appropriate person do it?" It's, "Did the appropriate person authorize it?"