Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

LDS Apostle: Policy on same-sex couples was revelation from God


Recommended Posts

Posted
33 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I may be wrong, but I assume the timeline would raise questions/concerns only for those who don't see this as roughly the pattern followed for all decisions taken by the First President and the Quorum of the Twelve. Based on personal experience, I've always assumed that most/all policies and procedures arise from revelatory experiences on the parts of the prophets.

I've always thought that goes without saying.

I think it's part of what Richard Bushman has called "the routinization of charisma" within the Church of Jesus Christ (for an explanation of which, see here). I think it will be a sad day when the leaders of the Church are obliged to attest to the inspiration behind each and every policy decision because rank-and-file members refuse to recognize its presence as a routine matter.

 

Posted
27 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Why should Elder Nelson get better treatment from you than I?

Um, maybe because he merits it?

By the way, the appropriate title these days is President Nelson. He has been president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. since the death of President Boyd K. Packer last year.

Posted
17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

No, it doesn't.

when you accuse someone of abuse you need to show something a bit more concrete than a naked accusation.

If, however,  you are implementing  the new policy by  abusing children, then might I suggest a different approach?

I'll guess you'll have to take that up with Elder Oaks.

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've always thought that goes without saying.

I think it's part of what Richard Bushman has called "the routinization of charisma" within the Church of Jesus Christ (for an explanation of which, see here). I think it will be a sad day when the leaders of the Church are obliged to attest to the inspiration behind each and every policy decision because rank-and-file members refuse to recognize its presence as a routine matter.

 

I've been wrong so many times when I assumed that what they taught was inspired/revealed only to find out that it wasn't... now I am forced to question everything and rely solely on my own spiritual confirmations.

Edited by rockpond
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'll guess you'll have to take that up with Elder Oaks.

Elder Oaks is not abusing children.

This is why it is hard to take you seriously, you accuse people of horrific crimes without any evidence.

If you think he is inciting child abuse, then it is for you to substantiate your accusation. 

Falsely accusing someone of child abuse is a horrible thing.

Edited by Danzo
Posted
3 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

So I hope you and the GLBT etc. folks for whom you are a collaborator an ally will refrain from bullying or ostracising LDS children.

What is the matter with you?  That was a crass and disgusting comment.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Elder Oaks is not abusing children.

This is why it is hard to take you seriously, you accuse people of horrific crimes without any evidence.

If you think he is inciting child abuse, then it is for you to substantiate your accusation. 

Falsely accusing someone of child abuse is a horrible thing.

More horrible than to denounce the practice and then conspire to commit it?

Posted
9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By the way, the appropriate title these days is President Nelson. He has been president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. since the death of President Boyd K. Packer last year.

Thank you for the correction, Scott.

Because it really is all about titles, isn't it?

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I've been wrong so many times when I assumed that what they taught was inspired/revealed only to find out that it wasn't... now I am forced to question everything and rely solely on my own spiritual confirmations.

 

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

You've been "wrong so many times" that now you're compelled to watch them like a hawk, because you've concluded that likely as not they are lying to you.

If I was beset with such cynicism, I think I would have left a long time ago.

Fortunately, I'm not, because my own experience and observation doesn't warrant it. (Neither do my spiritual confirmations.)

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

More horrible than to denounce the practice and then conspire to commit it?

It shows a great deal of desperation on your part to accuse them of child abuse.

You are losing any credibility you might of once had.

 

Edited by Danzo
Posted
7 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Elder Oaks is not abusing children.

This is why it is hard to take you seriously, you accuse people of horrific crimes without any evidence.

If you think he is inciting child abuse, then it is for you to substantiate your accusation. 

Falsely accusing someone of child abuse is a horrible thing.

Perhaps you should re-read the thread of comments.  I haven't accused Elder Oaks of abusing children.

Posted
4 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Thank you for the correction, Scott.

Because it really is all about titles, isn't it?

You remind me of an old joke pertaining to headline writers: "If governor doesn't fit, try mayor."

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

What is the matter with you?  That was a crass and disgusting comment.

No more crass or disgusting than the insinuation or overt accusation that prophets and apostles of God are abusing children through a handbook update.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted
6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

You've been "wrong so many times" that now you're compelled to watch them like a hawk, because you've concluded that likely as not they are lying to you.

If I was beset with such cynicism, I think I would have left a long time ago.

Fortunately, I'm not, because my own experience and observation doesn't warrant it. (Neither do my spiritual confirmations.)

 

My own experience and observation hasn't warranted me leaving either but I am carefully considering how to react to this latest "revelation".

Posted
4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Perhaps you should re-read the thread of comments.  I haven't accused Elder Oaks of abusing children.

Perhaps you could clarify.

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't know the clinical definition of psychological abuse.  But the policy certainly fits Elder Oaks' Oct 2012 definition of psychological abuse.

 

Posted
1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Perhaps you could clarify.

 

What would you have me clarify.  It means what it says:  the policy (see CHI1) fits Elder Oaks definition of psychological abuse from his Oct 2012 talk.

 

Posted
4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

My own experience and observation hasn't warranted me leaving either but I am carefully considering how to react to this latest "revelation".

I would suggest pizza and ice cream.

Admittedly that is a good reaction to almost everything.

Posted
9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

My own experience and observation hasn't warranted me leaving either but I am carefully considering how to react to this latest "revelation".

I meant my own experience and observation hasn't warranted my viewing the Brethren as being habitual liars.

Posted
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I meant my own experience and observation hasn't warranted my viewing the Brethren as being habitual liars.

Of course not.  Neither has mine.

Posted
1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Of course not.  Neither has mine.

Yet you just said you can't trust them as a matter of course anymore. You've been "wrong too many times."

Bushman's "routinization of charisma" is not a workable paradigm for you. You are constantly suspicious and on your guard.

That's what's coming across, anyway

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yet you just said you can't trust them as a matter of course anymore. You've been "wrong too many times."

Bushman's "routinization of charisma" is not a workable paradigm for you. You are constantly suspicious and on your guard.

That's what's coming across, anyway

 

Having to question their teachings and seek my own personal spiritual confirmations (as I wrote) is different than accusing them of being "habitual liars" (what you wrote).

Take it easy on me, Scott, we're on the same side even if you don't think so.

 

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What would you have me clarify.  It means what it says:  the policy (see CHI1) fits Elder Oaks definition of psychological abuse from his Oct 2012 talk.

 

 

I don't see it.

You say that people are engaging in behaviors that abuse children using the church policy as justification?

Have children been abused in your ward as a result of the policy?

Edited by Danzo
Posted
2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Having to question their teachings and seek my own personal spiritual confirmations (as I wrote) is different than accusing them of being "habitual liars" (what you wrote).

Take it easy on me, Scott, we're on the same side even if you don't think so.

 

I still very much hold to the routinization of charisma. Within the past hour I've been lambasted for doing so, to the point I'm now questioning whether there is much use in carrying on conversations with some on this board.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...