sethpayne Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 So if something is not in the scriptures, it isn't true or genuine?By the way, you don't have my permission to use my name or quote in your sig line. I'll give you some time to take it down before I approach the moderators about it. Report away, Scott. Report away. The board rule on signatures is: Quoting members in your signature without obtaining their permission I guess you don't read very carefully. I'm not quoting you. So please, don't delay. Report away. But I'll make you a deal. I'll completely remove my entire signature if you will publicly retract the lies you stated about me. Deal? 1
sethpayne Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 So if something is not in the scriptures, it isn't true or genuine? I follow Elder McConkie on this one. Doctrine is in the standard works. I don't consider bureaucratic elitism to be consistent with the scriptures. In fact, as I recall, it was Jesus who washed the feet of the Apostles. Not the other way around.
Kenngo1969 Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 I follow Elder McConkie on this one. Doctrine is in the standard works. Right: Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and Book of Bruce. Sorry; couldn't resist!
sethpayne Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Right: Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and Book of Bruce. Sorry; couldn't resist! Isn't "Mormon Doctrine" the Book of Bruce?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 I follow Elder McConkie on this one. Doctrine is in the standard works. I don't consider bureaucratic elitism to be consistent with the scriptures. In fact, as I recall, it was Jesus who washed the feet of the Apostles. Not the other way around.The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve administer the Church under inspiration from Christ. Not every administrative directive is written down in the Standard Works, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore it.
sethpayne Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve administer the Church under inspiration from Christ. Not every administrative directive is written down in the Standard Works, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore it. Can you point me to where this administrative directive is written down? Sincere question because I don't have access to the handbooks at the moment. Or is this one of those "unwritten order of things" things? ETA: For clarity - is this written down as an official policy? I know it is was in an address delivered by then Elder Nelson. But a conference talk isn't doctrine. And it certainly isn't policy. Edited July 16, 2015 by sethpayne
Scott Lloyd Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Can you point me to where this administrative directive is written down? Sincere question because I don't have access to the handbooks at the moment. Or is this one of those "unwritten order of things" things?It was quoted, so it must have been written down. It was expressed in general conference at least. That gives it considerable stature.
sethpayne Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 It was quoted, so it must have been written down.It was expressed in general conference at least. That gives it considerable stature. Yeah.... I clarified my previous post. But stature isn't doctrine or policy. To me it seems like a lot of earthly and Western traditions of "respect" seeping into the worldwide Church. In Asia, one show of respect is bowing. So should Asian Saints bow to President Nelson or simply stand up when he walks in the room? IMO, all this kind of stuff does is create an informal tiered system within the membership of the Church -- as if it were actually something God cared about -- and has the potential to lead to elitism.
Duncan Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Does anyone know what the President of the Twelve does? I had heard they give out stake conference assignments and do training of the other brethren, but does anyone know?
Mystery Meat Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) IMO, I can see us standing before the judgment bar and God saying something to the effect of: God: So I noticed you would wouldn't call my anointed by their respective titles? Person: It seemed like such a small and silly thing. God: Exactly. So tell me again why you wouldn't do it. Person: I thought it created a tiered system and encouraged pride among the brethren. God: So in other words, you thought it was your job to do my job and keep the brethren humble, and meanwhile weren't humble enough to follow a simple directive. Noted. Edited July 16, 2015 by Mystery Meat 4
Gray Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 IMO, I can see us standing before the judgment bar and God saying something to the effect of: God: So I noticed you would wouldn't call my anointed by their respective titles? Person: It seemed like such a small and silly thing. God: Exactly. So tell me again why you wouldn't do it. Person: I thought it created a tiered system and encouraged pride among the brethren. God: So in other words, you thought it was your job to do my job and keep the brethren humble, and meanwhile weren't humble enough to follow a simple directive. Noted. People who do things differently than me will surely be smitten by God in the end. I know it. 3
Mystery Meat Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) People who do things differently than me will surely be smitten by God in the end. I know it. I never said they would be smitten. My point was that this is a relatively small thing. God call people because he trusts them to manage the kingdom using their discretion. If we can't even sustain them in such a simple thing, why should we be trusted in the bigger things. Edited July 16, 2015 by Mystery Meat 2
Gray Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 I never said they would be smitten. There were some pretty ominous portents in your story for "person" (I'm sure the character was totally not based on any real persons, living or dead )
sethpayne Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 IMO, I can see us standing before the judgment bar and God saying something to the effect of: God: So I noticed you would wouldn't call my anointed by their respective titles? Person: It seemed like such a small and silly thing. God: Exactly. So tell me again why you wouldn't do it. Person: I thought it created a tiered system and encouraged pride among the brethren. God: So in other words, you thought it was your job to do my job and keep the brethren humble, and meanwhile weren't humble enough to follow a simple directive. Noted. Do you think not using "proper" titles -- the specific use of which is not discussed in scripture -- would keep a person out of the Celestial Kingdom? And who said anything about keeping anyone humble?
sethpayne Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 I never said they would be smitten. My point was that this is a relatively small thing. God call people because he trusts them to manage the kingdom using their discretion. If we can't even sustain them in such a simple thing, why should we be trusted in the bigger things. Well, maybe because they are MORTAL MEN who are subject to all of the problems everyone else is. GAs have been excommunicated -- even committed adultery. Extremely rare, but it happens. But you want us to pay strict attention to the use of titles? Talk about missing the point. How about listening to these men, giving serious consideration to their words through study and prayer and leave it at that? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 The incident related in Numbers 12 involving Miriam and Aaron is a pretty good example of how the Lord views it when people get to placing themselves on a par with or ahead of the anointed leader in determining how things are run in the Church. The Rock Waterman episode is a pretty good modern-day illustration.
Gray Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 The incident related in Numbers 12 involving Miriam and Aaron is a pretty good example of how the Lord views it when people get to placing themselves on a par with or ahead of the anointed leader in determining how things are run in the Church.The Rock Waterman episode is a pretty good modern-day illustration. Or, at least, that's a pretty good indication of how the author of Numbers viewed it.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Does anyone know what the President of the Twelve does? I had heard they give out stake conference assignments and do training of the other brethren, but does anyone know?This link in Encyclopedia of Mormonism gives a pretty good summary:http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Quorum_of_the_Twelve_Apostles 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Or, at least, that's a pretty good indication of how the author of Numbers viewed it.Well Sethpayne must have a higher regard for scriptures than you, as he apparently sees them as being the Supreme Authority on Church administration.
Mystery Meat Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) Do you think not using "proper" titles -- the specific use of which is not discussed in scripture -- would keep a person out of the Celestial Kingdom? And who said anything about keeping anyone humble? In regards to your first question, the question you are asking is all wrong. Implicit in it is the thought of "how much can I get away with and still get into the Celestial Kingdom?" I doubt that not using titles will keep anyone out of the Kingdom, however I think attitude of intentionally pushing the boundaries to get in as much rule breaking as you can very well could. The question you should be asking is "Why wouldn't I do this?" Edited July 16, 2015 by Mystery Meat 1
Mystery Meat Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Well, maybe because they are MORTAL MEN who are subject to all of the problems everyone else is. GAs have been excommunicated -- even committed adultery. Extremely rare, but it happens. But you want us to pay strict attention to the use of titles? Talk about missing the point. How about listening to these men, giving serious consideration to their words through study and prayer and leave it at that? Who says I dont?
sethpayne Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 In regards to your first question, the question you are asking is all wrong. Implicit in it is the thought of "how much can I get away with and still get into the Celestial Kingdom?" I doubt that not using titles will keep anyone out of the Kingdom, however I think attitude of intentionally pushing the boundaries to get in as much rule breaking as you can very well could. The question you should be asking is "Why wouldn't I do this?" Well, we certainly operate from very different assumptions. And I think I understand where you are coming from. I think where you and I part ways is in the "Why wouldn't I do this?" I'm questioning what underlies this question. You mention rules and boundaries? What rules? What boundaries? I can't find them in the Scriptures. And in fact, the whole idea seems contrary to the *principles* outlined in the Scriptures. 1
sethpayne Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) Who says I dont? I'm not saying *you.* I'm speaking in general. As in, why can't this be the simple way we teach our kids and others to be respectful of Church leaders and their callings. ETA: It seems to me that all of these "rules" about titles put a veneer of respect but they do nothing to actually teach respect and instill it within members of the Church. Edited July 16, 2015 by sethpayne
Gray Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) Well Sethpayne must have a higher regard for scriptures than you, as he apparently sees them as being the Supreme Authority on Church administration. I agree with Marcus Borg (as does David Bokovoy): Scripture is a human product. Scripture is the response of religious communities to God, not the other way around. Edited July 16, 2015 by Gray 1
sethpayne Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Well Sethpayne must have a higher regard for scriptures than you, as he apparently sees them as being the Supreme Authority on Church administration. Indeed I do. Very well put. The Scriptures are the Supreme Authority (man, I like the sound of that!) on questions of Church administration.
Recommended Posts