DBMormon Posted August 23, 2015 Author Posted August 23, 2015 So why did you ask if you know the answer to your question? Are you looking for a disagreement?Any time various people hold various positions in a discussion there will be disagreement.. I asked hoping someone could provide an official source.. I see now that all we have are the philosophies of men
Bernard Gui Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Cfr for where such things need permissionWhy do you have to have a CFR for something that just requires common sense and a notion that you understand what constitutes authority in the Church?What if they told you no? What would you do? [EDIT] I mentioned earlier that Sister Gui and I are organizing a support group for faithful family members of those that might be attending your group.We have passed it through the stake president, have his permission, and feel very good about going ahead. I would not consider it my placeto organize such a group on my own simply because it is not my stewardship. Why do you think it is your stewardship to take this on? Edited August 23, 2015 by Bernard Gui 2
DBMormon Posted August 23, 2015 Author Posted August 23, 2015 Seems to me that this kind of "faith counseling" should be handled by those who have the keys to administer it. Perhaps a visit with the bishop/stake president in which you make your case for such a meeting would be the best way to settle the issue. This board is not the best place to get such permissions. Giving them forgiveness really raises a red flag for me. That is not your stewardship.Seems to me your wrong
DBMormon Posted August 23, 2015 Author Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Why do you have to have a CFR for something that just requires common sense and a notion that you understand what constitutes authority in the Church?What if they told you no? What would you do?Asanine Please be considerate in your responses, even if you disagree. -Mods Edited August 24, 2015 by Ares
DBMormon Posted August 23, 2015 Author Posted August 23, 2015 Why do you have to have a CFR for something that just requires common sense and a notion that you understand what constitutes authority in the Church?What if they told you no? What would you do?Does the sp preside in my home and over members in my home not of his stake?
The Nehor Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Can you have the sprit of contention while also having the spirit of the holy ghost This is the spirit of ridicule not the spirit of contention. Contention would mean I am angry and trying to refute you. I see nothing to refute. My goal is to clarify your status as an ineptly trolling doofus. No calling names - Mods Edited August 24, 2015 by Ares
Bernard Gui Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 We have a study group in our ward. It's called the Men's Illiterate Book Club. We meet on the last Friday of the month from 11:30am to 1pm and havea luncheon wherein we do not discuss books. In fact, if you read books, you are not allowed to attend. Our bishop knows of the meeting, but wehave not asked his permission. Is there an official Church Policy that restricts our ability to meet, eat, and not discuss books? If there is, CFR. 1
Bernard Gui Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 AsanineThis speaks volumes about your intentions. For a while, I was somewhat sympathetic, but it appears you have another agenda. 3
Bernard Gui Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Seems to me your wrongHow do you justify giving counseling and forgiveness? What are you forgiving? How do you assume that authority? Edited August 23, 2015 by Bernard Gui 2
busybee Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 Any time various people hold various positions in a discussion there will be disagreement.. I asked hoping someone could provide an official source.. I see now that all we have are the philosophies of menYou have decided on what answer you want to hear. NOTHING anyone says or provides would satisfy you. You'll rationalize your way around it. Carry on. 4
Bernard Gui Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Does the sp preside in my home and over members in my home not of his stake?Of course not. But if you are gathering members into your home to give them faith counseling and forgiveness, he does indeed preside over that.He has the keys as do the stake presidents of whomever you have in your house. You do not. Edited August 23, 2015 by Bernard Gui 3
DBMormon Posted August 23, 2015 Author Posted August 23, 2015 This is the spirit of ridicule not the spirit of contention. Contention would mean I am angry and trying to refute you. I see nothing to refute. My goal is to clarify your status as an ineptly trolling doofus.Name calling too
DBMormon Posted August 23, 2015 Author Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Of course not. But if you are gathering members into your home to give them faith counseling and forgiveness, he does indeed preside over that.He has the keys as do the stake presidents of whomever you have in your house. You do not.Only SP's can help people forgive, only SP's can council. Huh Edited August 23, 2015 by DBMormon
DBMormon Posted August 23, 2015 Author Posted August 23, 2015 You have decided on what answer you want to hear. NOTHING anyone says or provides would satisfy you. You'll rationalize your way around it. Carry on.i plan on it
Bernard Gui Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Only SP's can help people forgive, only SP's can council. HuhWho and what are you forgiving? And how do you assume that responsibility? What qualifies you to give faith counseling? Edited August 23, 2015 by Bernard Gui
Popular Post ttribe Posted August 23, 2015 Popular Post Posted August 23, 2015 It has been my observation that critics of Bill Reel on this board have been unduly harsh in the past, and in this thread as well. That being said, the more this thread has developed, the more it looks like a pot-stirring exercise by Bill. I'm not sure what the point of that really is. You want to have your meetings, Bill? Have your meetings. An Internet message board, especially this one, is unlikely to be kind to your intentions on this. If you were genuinely looking for feedback as to the source of the long-standing practice of discouraging independent "study groups" in the Church, I think it's pretty clear that there isn't a good reference source on this issue at this point. Beyond that, you're just getting sucked into trading barbs with The Nehor. Nothing productive will come of that. 5
JLHPROF Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 It has been my observation that critics of Bill Reel on this board have been unduly harsh in the past, and in this thread as well. That being said, the more this thread has developed, the more it looks like a pot-stirring exercise by Bill. I'm not sure what the point of that really is. As I already posted, this topic has reared its head before. Bill even commented on one of the last ones, so he is aware of that. I think the consensus is that despite all claims that "the Church forbids private study groups" they have never done so officially. They may have discouraged certain practices at these meetings (see the handbook) and even discouraged them in general (see numerous people's sketchy memories from the early 90's) but only the occasional overeager bishops/SP have ever done anything to stop them (see many anecdotes) - the Church never has. So yeah, a bit of pot stirring for sure. Study away. 4
Damien the Leper Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 I'm not sure I'm on board with the study group thing in an LDS context as it would encourage too much independent thinking. OTOH, I am good with members laying out their contentions openly and appropriately in church meetings. If a member disagrees with an interpretation or rendering of scripture then they should put it out there and make their case and back it up. Contentions should be discussed in church and not just in the bishop's cubicle.
smac97 Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) I should add I am aware of this https://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/12/news-of-the-church/policies-and-announcements?lang=eng But this really doesn't apply at all to the group I am speaking of that I am involved with. I think the Church's guidelines are quite good. For me, I would add a few more qualifications: Church members should not participate in groups that: 1. Imitate sacred rites or ceremonies. 2. Foster physical contact among participants. 3. Meet late into the evening or in the early-morning hours. 4. Encourage open confession or disclosure of personal information normally discussed only in confidential settings. 5. Cause a husband and wife to be paired with other partners. --- 6. Are secretive or encourage participants to not disclose the contents of the meeting to family members or local Church leaders. 7. Discuss or advocate "private" militancy or violence, or opposition to or the overthrow of civil government, or the stockpiling of weapons. 8. Center on or make claims of special or secret authority or revelations of an individual or group, which claims are not recognized by the visible Church. Thanks, -Smac Edited August 23, 2015 by smac97 1
sdc999 Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 This seems like a pretty simple subject. Everyone here believes in private study groups or they wouldn't be here. You cannot arbitrarily come to this board more than a certain amount of times before being restricted - then you MUST join/sign up. There are controversial topics discussed here and there are "sick" ones that have tried to convince others they are wrong. This board is no different that meeting in person in someone's home. I take that back. Although Nehor does not like the anonymity claim about this type of structure, meeting in someone's home allows for personal accountability where people here may spout whatever. You may be banned or suspended but there's nothing like courage to look someone in the eye and say your true feelings. 2
smac97 Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 I seem to recall a letter from the First Presidency years ago that discouraged (or outlawed) private groups of LDS meeting together to discuss gospel related subjects. I think it too frequently leads to apostasy (which, if it ever happened at all, would be too frequently). If my memory is correct, then that might lead to some vestigial uneasiness with such private group meetings. I would feel quite comfortable with meeting in a quite small group with extended family members, or with close friends. Thanks, -Smac
The Nehor Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 Name calling too Name calling has its uses. The Savior used the technique himself. 2
Damien the Leper Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Duplicate Edited August 23, 2015 by Valentinus
Coreyb Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 How is this board all that different from an in person study group that discusses gospel topics, other than there are no set meetings so we just pop in when we want, and we can hide our IRL identity through an avatar if we so choose?
Popular Post smac97 Posted August 23, 2015 Popular Post Posted August 23, 2015 I am not defensive nor angry nor embittered. I have been chuckling all morning at this. and I truly mean... by all means..... So you are doing . . . what, exactly? Trying to provoke your fellow Saints to anger and then "chuckling" about it when you succeed? What am I reading here? I thought this was a serious discussion, not an attempt at provocation. Thanks, -Smac 6
Recommended Posts