Hey Let's Talk Church Direction

[sethpayne]

No, it is not meaningless. The doctrine is what it is, the commandments are what they are, and those who insist on having their misbehavior embraced are going to be disappointed.

 

But the problem is that you believe the doctrine and others don't.  You have no way to prove the doctrine as objectively true.  I'm not saying it isn't.  But it certainly isn't demonstrable.

 

In order for this statement to have meaning you would need to convince others of the doctrine.  And that's just not going to happen.  What may be misbehavior to you, is not to others.  

 

ETA:  I should probably say the *interpretation* of doctrine as I think most Christians would agree that the Bible contains Christian doctrine.

Edited October 16, 2015 by sethpayne

[Scott Lloyd]

But the problem is that you believe the doctrine and others don't.  You have no way to prove the doctrine as objectively true.  I'm not saying it isn't.  But it certainly isn't demonstrable.

 

In order for this statement to have meaning you would need to convince others of the doctrine.  And that's just not going to happen.  What may be misbehavior to you, is not to others.  

 

ETA:  I should probably say the *interpretation* of doctrine as I think most Christians would agree that the Bible contains Christian doctrine.

I believe it's doctrine because it is doctrine.

 

Disbelieving doctrine does not render doctrine undoctrinal.

[sethpayne]

I believe it's doctrine because it is doctrine.

 

Disbelieving doctrine does not render doctrine undoctrinal.

 

Well, doctrine doesn't exist in a vacuum.  It *must* be interpreted, at least to some degree, no?

 

I mean, take a look at Deut 32.  It is clear as day -- to me at least -- that YHWH, El Elyon, and the other Els are absolutely separate and that El-Elyon gave a nations to each El a nation as his portion.  YHWH was given Israel.

 

It's very clear in the hebrew text and  yet, folks interpret the verses in a wide variety of ways.  Indeed, traditional Christians have to work hard on dismissing the clear meaning of the text because it calls into question their *other* textual interpretations of the NT.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, doctrine doesn't exist in a vacuum.  It *must* be interpreted, at least to some degree, no?

 

I mean, take a look at Deut 32.  It is clear as day -- to me at least -- that YHWH, El Elyon, and the other Els are absolutely separate and that El-Elyon gave a nations to each El a nation as his portion.  YHWH was given Israel.

 

It's very clear in the hebrew text and  yet, folks interpret the verses in a wide variety of ways.  Indeed, traditional Christians have to work hard on dismissing the clear meaning of the text because it calls into question their *other* textual interpretations of the NT.

I think you would have a very difficult time finding one of the Brethren -- who are charged with understanding the doctrines of the gospel and teaching them to the Church -- who regards the teachings of the Church regarding marriage as being doctrinally questionable.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh, they heard about it that night, and also the YW President. The YW was appropriately appalled and expressed how badly she felt. The Bishop expressed that he felt badly that my daughter cried but reiterated that she needed to be a good example (that's when he admitted he didn't understand the reference). The offending YW 2nd counselor/teacher had no clue why her behavior was inappropriate and thought it was important that my daughter learn this lesson. Thankfully my daughter is pretty tough AND she'll be out of that class very soon.

To feel is a linking verb. It links the subject to its predicate adjective. Thus, the word should be the adjective bad, modifying the subject (she or he), not the adverb badly modifying to feel. Thus:

 

Proper: He felt bad that my daughter cried,

 

Improper: He felt badly that my daughter cried.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

To feel is a linking verb. It links the subject to its predicate adjective. Thus, the word should be the adjective bad, modifying the subject (she or he), not the adverb badly modifying to feel. Thus:

 

Proper: He felt bad that my daughter cried,

 

Improper: He felt badly that my daughter cried.

You crack me up, Professor!

[ALarson]

You crack me up, Professor!

Me too  I actually get a kick out of it and am amazed at your skills and knowledge regarding the English language, Scott.  

 

Question:

Scott, do you correct your wife and kids like this too?  I would have loved to have someone around like you to proof all of my college papers!!!

[Scott Lloyd]

Me too  I actually get a kick out of it and am amazed at your skills and knowledge regarding the English language, Scott.  

 

Question:

Scott, do you correct your wife and kids like this too?  I would have loved to have someone around like you to proof all of my college papers!!!

I do on occasion.

 

Except for our youngest child, a daughter, now age 10. She has been a precocious speaker almost from birth, to the point that I don't have the heart to correct her because I think it so cute when she tries so hard to speak properly that she ends up doing it improperly ("fastly" instead of "fast," for example).

 

If anything, she is apt to correct me. The other night, her mother sent me to the basement to bring up a can of corn for dinner.

 

I returned and said, "Here's the carn," imitative of the folks in southern Utah, where my mom's hometown was. The conversation ensued as follows:

 

Daughter: It's corn, Dad, not "carn."

 

Me: I know. I was saying it like they would in southern Utah.

 

Daughter: But you don't live in southern Utah. You live in Sandy, Utah, USA.

[carbon dioxide]

One time I was sitting at the stand to bless the sacrament. I was sitting up there for awhile. I was wearing a white shirt with some tiny blue stripes and the Bishop of the ward went over to me in front of the congregation and asked me to sit down because I wasn't wearing a pure white shirt. I never felt more humiliated in church than that moment. Everyone saw me sit down.

I guess those who bless the sacrament to the bishop should wear white pants, shoes, and a tie as well.  Perhaps dye the hair white.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Ya that Bishop rubbed me the wrong way.

[Stargazer]

I think there's a certain personality characteristic whereby a person overreacts because of fear about some perceived social association or symbolism.

 

Where I live, the school district built a new high school and solicited suggestions from and polled the families and students who would be patrons of the new high school as to what the school's mascot should be. The most popular choice was Cougars.

 

The school district superintendent recommended to the school board that they override the popular choice because of complaints that had been received in the district office. I think a lot of it had to do with in-state rivalry -- if not enmity -- due to "Cougars" being the mascot of BYU. But the expressed reason was that "cougar" carries a sexual connotation: an older woman on the make for younger men. I had never even heard of that connotation until this came up.

 

Anyway, the school board unanimously went with the superintendent's recommendation and arbitrarily picked a different mascot, one that the superintendent suggested, one that had not even been one of the choices in the polling, thus ignoring the expressed preference of students and parents in the area of the new high school's boundaries. The story went nationwide, and the school board and superintendent became a laughingstock.

 

Epilogue: This happened three or four years ago. Since then, four of the seven school board members have been voted out of office, one declined to seek re-election, and the superintendent has resigned. Thus, six of the eight players are gone. This incident certainly wasn't the sole reason for all of that, but I have no doubt it played a part.

 

Edited to add: Regarding the situation you relate, I believe that not just the leader but the bishop owes your daughter an apology. He exercised poor judgment. Sustaining people in their callings does not mean you uphold them in unwise behavior or decisions, especially when you don't comprehend the reasoning behind the decision, as the bishop clearly didn't in this case.

 

OK, I'm lazy and am not looking this up, so would you please oblige me and tell me if they eventually changed the school mascot to "Cougars" as per the original poll?

[Scott Lloyd]

OK, I'm lazy and am not looking this up, so would you please oblige me and tell me if they eventually changed the school mascot to "Cougars" as per the original poll?

Oh, no.

 

It was decreed that the mascot be Chargers, and so it has been unto this day.

 

Funny thing is, in board commentary, one of the members said he liked Chargers because of the alliteration with the name of the new school: Corner Canyon High School. Thus, Corner Canyon Chargers. A waggish Deseret News columnist twitted him in print, saying, "Guess what, Mr. Cromar. 'Corner Canyon Chargers' is not alliteration; Corner Canyon Cougars is."

 

As it turned out, though, that board member had been sandbagged by the district superintendent himself. I looked up the supporting documents, and in a memo to the board recommending Chargers as the mascot, the superintendent had given alliteration as one of the reasons Chargers was a desirable choice.

 

I thought to myself, "Well, Mr. Doty, I don't have a doctorate in education or law, but I know what alliteration is -- and what it isn't."

Edited October 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Avatar4321]

Jeanne I agree. I felt bitter feelings towards that Bishop for the embarrassment he caused me. I haven't forgotten it.

How exactly was it embarrassing though? Did he ask you to do it over the loud speaker? I've sat up prepared to bless or pass the sacrament many times and been told to go back with my family, none of which had to do with worthiness. It has never even entered my mind to be embarrassed.

And why hold onto the bitterness brother? The Lord died so you don't have to hold onto it. What's keeping you from letting go?

[Stargazer]

How exactly was it embarrassing though? Did he ask you to do it over the loud speaker? I've sat up prepared to bless or pass the sacrament many times and been told to go back with my family, none of which had to do with worthiness. It has never even entered my mind to be embarrassed.

And why hold onto the bitterness brother? The Lord died so you don't have to hold onto it. What's keeping you from letting go?

Another thing to keep in mind is that he is almost certainly the only person in the world who remembers the event. The embarrassment is therefore dead and gone, and should be forgotten by the last person who remembers it.

I know I know, sometimes we remember things we would rather forget.

[stemelbow]

I found this link by way of Daniel Peterson's blog.

 

The title is

"No, Christianity Should Not ‘Welcome’ or ‘Include’ Your Sinful Lifestyle"

 

I post it here because I think it relevant to the thread topic. The piece references Christianity in general, but I think it applies to Mormonism in particular. Being welcoming and inclusive pertains to people, not their sinful behavior or misguided views. The purpose of the Church of Jesus Christ is to help people -- all people, me included -- to change. To grow and improve. To put off the natural man and to become a saint in Christ.

 

As the author expresses it to the anonymous e-mailer to whom he addresses his post:

Did I just get told that I come to Christ sick and broken but asking to be told I'm not sick and broken?

Fewf! This seems to describe exactly what the problem is. MOrmons tend to love to condemn. Thanks, Scott. I see I needed a better illustration of the problem. I feel bad it was Dr. Peterson who illustrated it. But we'll be able to talk through the issue better once it's been laid out. Not sure I realized so many in the Church think I go to Christ expecting HIm to tell me I'm not sick and broken. Weird judgment, but now I know, I think we can move forward.

[Scott Lloyd]

Did I just get told that I come to Christ sick and broken but asking to be told I'm not sick and broken?

 

 

Not by me you didn't.

 

Fewf! This seems to describe exactly what the problem is. MOrmons tend to love to condemn.

 

 

So, do I understand you to say, then, that indicating all are invited to come unto Christ but that at the same time all are commanded to repent of sin and wrongdoing is symptomatic of how "Mormons love to condemn"? That seems like quite a leap in logic.

 

Thanks, Scott. I see I needed a better illustration of the problem. I feel bad it was Dr. Peterson who illustrated it.

 

Let's be clear. Daniel didn't write that blog post. He only linked to it. I became aware of it because of the link he provided.

 

 

But we'll be able to talk through the issue better once it's been laid out. Not sure I realized so many in the Church think I go to Christ expecting HIm to tell me I'm not sick and broken. Weird judgment, but now I know, I think we can move forward.

 

 

I'm mystified how you could have concluded that from what I posted. I don't see how you can "move forward" harboring such a  misinterpretation of what I wrote.

 

 I'll leave you to your thoughts.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Avatar4321]

But we are sick and broken. It's precisely why Christ came. How is it offensive to recognize that or realize we all need the savior to heal us?

And how for acknowledging that condemn anyone?

Anyone else notice the people complaining about being judged are doing the most judging?

Marvel not that all men everywhere must be born again. Isn't that what alma said?

So have you been spiritually born of God?

[bsjkki]

The danger in having "negative experiences" at church is when they begin to add up.  This is especially dangerous for the youth because they do not have years of positive experiences or rock solid testimonies to draw upon to get them through the rough spots.  The youth are very sensitive to being called out publicly in front of classmates.  They may be able to weather one bad experience from one person but then you add another, or as in this case, the Bishop joining in and things intensify.  I was of the opinion you support your church leaders, go with the flow, take the high road and move on but I have changed my mind.  When your children are bullied or treated badly at church or a leader unrighteously crosses the boundary lines from church leader to upsurping parents roles, you must push back and protect your kids.   One of my children is inactive because from her experience, the church hurts people.  It is hard to overcome her lived experience even though many have not experienced the same.  When leaders become overly controlling, it is a problem. 

[stemelbow]

Not by me you didn't.

Well. Good. I wasn't sure what you meant.

So, do I understand you to say, then, that indicating all are invited to come unto Christ but that at the same time all are commanded to repent of sin and wrongdoing is symptomatic of how "Mormons love to condemn"? That seems like quite a leap in logic.

No. I wouldn't say that we are commanded to repent of sin and wrongdoing is symptomatic of how "Mormons love to condemn". But the effort to condemn by many LDS is symptomatic of how "Mormons love to condemn".

Let's be clear. Daniel didn't write that blog post. He only linked to it. I became aware of it because of the link he provided.

Thanks. Here's a response that sits better with me:

http://barenakednate.blogspot.com/

I had read the two a little bit before I logged in here today and saw your post.

I'm mystified how you could have concluded that from what I posted. I don't see how you can "move forward" harboring such a misinterpretation of what I wrote.

I'll leave you to your thoughts.

The blog post suggested that.

I have many sins, but I will not tell you they are not sins. I come to Christ a sick and broken man looking for healing. You apparently come a sick and broken man looking to be assured you were never sick and broken to begin with. That is the only real difference between us. Or I should say, it’s the only real difference between Christians and “progressive Christians.”

He's telling me I do that. You supported his view. SO I thought you were suggesting the same. I'm happy to hear your thoughts on the matter.

[KevinG]

The sick and broken enter hospitals to be healed, not to have someone tell them their sickness is cool, or their broken limb is socially acceptable.

[stemelbow]

The sick and broken enter hospitals to be healed, not to have someone tell them their sickness is cool, or their broken limb is socially acceptable.

This is more like the sick going to the hospital only to find out they aren't welcome, it seems to me. That is if your response was in defense of the post the Scott linked.

Or it seems that way to me.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

The sick and broken enter hospitals to be healed, not to have someone tell them their sickness is cool, or their broken limb is socially acceptable.

 

And they don't go to be blamed, alienated, dismissed, or ridiculed for their ailment.

[Scott Lloyd]

The sick and broken enter hospitals to be healed, not to have someone tell them their sickness is cool, or their broken limb is socially acceptable.

Yes.

 

I don't know why that concept should be so hard to grasp.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is more like the sick going to the hospital only to find out they aren't welcome, it seems to me. That is if your response was in defense of the post the Scott linked.

Or it seems that way to me.

I don't see the post saying that.

[Scott Lloyd]

  

And they don't go to be blamed, alienated, dismissed, or ridiculed for their ailment.

I don't see anybody here advocating that.

 

And I don't see the blog post in question advocating that.