Poll: The Family: A Proclamation to the World

[consiglieri]

23 hours ago, Senator said:

Well, consiglieri, the reunion was grand..

....but will be short lived I'm affraid.

Hey!

I said I hoped I wasn't being too harsh and I didn't want to offend anybody.

What more can you ask for?

(Hope you are well, old friend!)

Edited December 12, 2015 by consiglieri

[consiglieri]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Why were you afraid to post a link? Is it an antagonistic website? Did you cut a deal with the moderators not to link to antagonistic websites if they let you back on here?

Why so hostile, Scott?

[consiglieri]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Up to your old tricks, I see.

A claim you make is soundly refuted, so you jump to the default position of casting aspersions on the integrity, honesty and spiritual gifts of the prophets and apostles.

I anticipated that might come sooner or later. Didn't take too long, as it turned out.

One's true feelings are more than "tricks," Scott.

Why are you so threatened by them?

And you have refuted nothing, soundly or otherwise.

That is one of your tricks.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Why so hostile, Scott?

Just a probing question. (I'm trained to do that sort of thing.)

You are free to answer -- or to not answer -- as you wish.

 

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just a probing question. (I'm trained to do that sort of thing.)

You are free to answer -- or to not answer -- as you wish.

 

A gentleman doesn't tell what he has, or has not done, with the moderators.

[Deborah]

54 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think the recent policy change has demonstrated the leaders of the LDS Church to be devoid of any revelation or inspiration.

From Jesus, at least.

I very much disagree. If you are making a reference to Jesus then remember he was sent to the Israelites and not to the Gentiles. It was for his Apostles to later go to them. In other words not everyone was privy to his presence while in mortality. God has always discriminated based on behavior and lineage. 

I think that the leaders of the church were inspired but had just as hard time wanting to add this policy as people have had accepting it. I think they had a great deal of discussion and praying and I think there are reasons for it that many are not able to see at this time, just as with the Family Proclamation.

You accept there may have been political reasons for the Proclamation, as do I. But I don't exclude the need for revelation to be able to bring it forth as it is. At the time it seemed that what the Proclamation presented was obvious, but today we see where such things are not only not obvious but actually being discredited in our society. Why not accept that the current new policy may have political reasons but also required revelation to decide what needed to be done and put it into policy as guidance for the local leadership. We don't yet know the ramifications and I for one have faith in the leaders, who are accountable to God, to make decisions that are needed for our time.

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, Deborah said:

I very much disagree. If you are making a reference to Jesus then remember he was sent to the Israelites and not to the Gentiles. It was for his Apostles to later go to them. In other words not everyone was privy to his presence while in mortality. God has always discriminated based on behavior and lineage. 

I think that the leaders of the church were inspired but had just as hard time wanting to add this policy as people have had accepting it. I think they had a great deal of discussion and praying and I think there are reasons for it that many are not able to see at this time, just as with the Family Proclamation.

You accept there may have been political reasons for the Proclamation, as do I. But I don't exclude the need for revelation to be able to bring it forth as it is. At the time it seemed that what the Proclamation presented was obvious, but today we see where such things are not only not obvious but actually being discredited in our society. Why not accept that the current new policy may have political reasons but also required revelation to decide what needed to be done and put it into policy as guidance for the local leadership. We don't yet know the ramifications and I for one have faith in the leaders, who are accountable to God, to make decisions that are needed for our time.

I certainly appreciate your position, Deborah, and in no way am attempting to dissuade you from it or convince you that I am right.

But to me, religion and politics make dangerous bedfellows.

For both the religion and the politics.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I certainly appreciate your position, Deborah, and in no way am attempting to dissuade you from it or convince you that I am right.

But to me, religion and politics make dangerous bedfellows.

For both the religion and the politics.

Which is why the Church of Jesus Christ only becomes involved in public issues when morality and the spiritual well being of society are at issue. The Church has always been upfront about that intent.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

I suppose there are cheerleaders on the other board directing this whole discussion.

Oh well.

No board wars?  We shall see.

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

One's true feelings are more than "tricks," Scott.

Why are you so threatened by them?

And you have refuted nothing, soundly or otherwise.

That is one of your tricks.

On the contrary, the quote I posted from President Packer very soundly refuted your claim -- overt or implied -- that the family proclamation was driven solely by the legal machinations going on in Hawaii.

And if one of my "tricks" is to highlight a penchant for resorting to calling the Brethren liars when things aren't going your way in a discussion, I plead guilty.

[Russell C McGregor]

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Also, I hate to say that I have to take justifications from Church leaders with a grain of salt.

The Church seems to have established something of a track record for giving explanations for Church actions that don't necessarily hold water.

Even as recently as Elder Christofferson's "interview" on the reasons for the new handbook policy.

I'm sure you understand.

Of course I understand.

And may I say that, while I rather adamantly disagree with you, I do appreciate that you are up front and honest enough to admit where you are coming from.

Your position does have the virtue of being consistent: given that the brethren are speaking from direct personal knowledge of the process that led to the policy being issued, and the reasoning behind it, their remarks on the topic are first-hand evidence. Therefore, if anyone wants to reject that evidence in favour of their own speculation, that can only proceed from a hermeneutic of mistrust towards the brethren whose statements they are dismissing.

[consiglieri]

57 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Of course I understand.

And may I say that, while I rather adamantly disagree with you, I do appreciate that you are up front and honest enough to admit where you are coming from.

Your position does have the virtue of being consistent: given that the brethren are speaking from direct personal knowledge of the process that led to the policy being issued, and the reasoning behind it, their remarks on the topic are first-hand evidence. Therefore, if anyone wants to reject that evidence in favour of their own speculation, that can only proceed from a hermeneutic of mistrust towards the brethren whose statements they are dismissing.

I think that covers it pretty well.

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Of course I understand.

And may I say that, while I rather adamantly disagree with you, I do appreciate that you are up front and honest enough to admit where you are coming from.

Your position does have the virtue of being consistent: given that the brethren are speaking from direct personal knowledge of the process that led to the policy being issued, and the reasoning behind it, their remarks on the topic are first-hand evidence. Therefore, if anyone wants to reject that evidence in favour of their own speculation, that can only proceed from a hermeneutic of mistrust towards the brethren whose statements they are dismissing.

I am not sure what evidence you are referencing.  This thread seems to be arguing over people's opinions only.

[Calm]

16 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Also, I hate to say that I have to take justifications from Church leaders with a grain of salt....

...the leaders of the LDS Church to be devoid of any revelation or inspiration.

Sounds like it is much more than a grain of salt. 

Edited December 12, 2015 by Calm

[consiglieri]

22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Which is why the Church of Jesus Christ only becomes involved in public issues when morality and the spiritual well being of society are at issue. The Church has always been upfront about that intent.

And I think the experience the Church has had in such issues proves my point that religion and politics make dangerous bedfellows.

Remember Prop 8?

[consiglieri]

22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On the contrary, the quote I posted from President Packer very soundly refuted your claim -- overt or implied -- that the family proclamation was driven solely by the legal machinations going on in Hawaii.

And if one of my "tricks" is to highlight a penchant for resorting to calling the Brethren liars when things aren't going your way in a discussion, I plead guilty.

Is this one of the new apologist tricks?  To accuse anybody who doesn't agree with you of calling "the Brethren liars"?

Russell did the exact same thing to me recently.

Now you are doing it.

And neither time was it true.

It is almost like you are both operating out of the same playbook . . .

[consiglieri]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Sounds like it is much more than a grain of salt. 

Sometimes coming to grips with truth can be a painful process.

I full admit that.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Sometimes coming to grips with truth can be a painful process.

I full admit that.

LOL.

Funny you should use that word without knowing what it means.  Describe your theory of truth then since you seem to know what you are talking about.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

And I think the experience the Church has had in such issues proves my point that religion and politics make dangerous bedfellows.

Remember Prop 8?

Knocking on hundreds of doors for weeks on end?

No I don't remember it at all.

Your point?

[why me]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

And I think the experience the Church has had in such issues proves my point that religion and politics make dangerous bedfellows.

Remember Prop 8?

This is not necessarily true. Of course, when churches come out in support of more liberal moral issues, it seems to be okay by many people who may be critical of lds positions and exclaim that religion and politics don't mix. It  becomes a matter what issue it is. And since the lds church tends to be more 'conservative' on moral issues, it can be routinely criticized by the more liberal wing when it comes to moral issues. But what is a more conservative church to do? Remain quiet? Lets look at the catholic church. People who were critical fo the catholic church have found pope francis wonderful because of his politics. Should the catholic church engage in climate change, social issues that help the poor etc? All can be said to be political. 

[why me]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Sometimes coming to grips with truth can be a painful process.

I full admit that.

Oh, consig, I miss the bulls eye days when you filled this board with your beautiful faith in your bulls eye OPs. What happened to those bulls eyes? What has changed? We old timers remember your former posts. 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, consiglieri said:

And I think the experience the Church has had in such issues proves my point that religion and politics make dangerous bedfellows.

Remember Prop 8?

Yes, I remember it as a shining example of the courage of the leaders and members of the Church of Jesus Christ in championing values and standards of decency.

Am I supposed to recoil in shame at your having mentioned it?

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Is this one of the new apologist tricks?  To accuse anybody who doesn't agree with you of calling "the Brethren liars"? .

What you did is pretty much what it amounted to.
 

Quote

 

Russell did the exact same thing to me recently.

Now you are doing it.

And neither time was it true.

It is almost like you are both operating out of the same playbook . .

 

I only know Russell through this message board, but being compared to him doesn't bother me in the least.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, why me said:

Oh, consig, I miss the bulls eye days when you filled this board with your beautiful faith in your bulls eye OPs. What happened to those bulls eyes? What has changed? We old timers remember your former posts. 

Not all of us remember them fondly. I spotted this trajectory rather early on.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

14 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Is this one of the new apologist tricks?  To accuse anybody who doesn't agree with you of calling "the Brethren liars"?

Russell did the exact same thing to me recently.

Now you are doing it.

And neither time was it true.

It is almost like you are both operating out of the same playbook . . .

 

But Consig, you agreed with me that that is what you were doing.

Scroll up a little, to where you said:

On 12/11/2015 at 0:22 PM, consiglieri said:

I think that covers it pretty well.