Scott Lloyd Posted January 13, 2016 Author Posted January 13, 2016 21 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I would add to that by saying that the "correlation movement" has killed revelation entirely. More substance-void posting.
Gray Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 56 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: CFR that the "correlation movement" limits revelation to being "top-down." My statement is a value judgement. You might as well issue a CFR about licorice being gross or cats being cute. But my reasoning (really borrowed from Greg Prince) is based on the idea that keeping all programs and manuals within strict control of church HQ is cutting off a source of revelation previously available to the church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_Correlation_Program Quote Before the correlation movement, the various organizations and auxiliaries of the church, including the Relief Society, Primary, Sunday School, welfare program, genealogy programs, and the Young Men and Young Women organizations were largely under the direction of the stake or ward, and curriculum could vary from ward to ward. Formal organization of a Correlation Committee occurred in 1908. Starting in 1944,[1] the Church Publications Committee approved the content and wording of the lesson materials from each of the auxiliaries making sure that everything that was published conformed to official church doctrine.[2]
Scott Lloyd Posted January 13, 2016 Author Posted January 13, 2016 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: No. It's a surmise, that's all. Thanks, -Smac What I meant by my question was to ask who wrote what you quoted. I now see that it was Stormin' Mormon.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 13, 2016 Author Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Gray said: My statement is a value judgement. You might as well issue a CFR about licorice being gross or cats being cute. But my reasoning (really borrowed from Greg Prince) is based on the idea that keeping all programs and manuals within strict control of church HQ is cutting off a source of revelation previously available to the church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_Correlation_Program If it's merely a statement of opinion on your part, I can tolerate that, even as I disagree with it. But it seemed like a flat assertion of fact; hence my CFR. Edited January 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
stemelbow Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 2 hours ago, smac97 said: There is, of course, the third option, which would be to follow the counsel given many times by the Brethren, including this article by Elder Oaks. Have you read this article? What are your thoughts on the counsel given in it (summarized here)? Elder Oaks addresses that issue. Criticizing ideas is exactly what he approves of, if you feel it worth doing. I'm not criticizing to severely judge, censure, or fault find. I'm realy not sure how this piece is to apply. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: More to the point, it "matters" because we are under covenant to not do what you are suggesting. I don't think we can advocate improving the way we understand one aspect of the Restored Gospel by going about violating another aspect of it. Thanks, -Smac Everyone violates one aspect of it and yet we all advocate improving the way we understand other aspects. I think that's how we all operate. Do you not violate, from time to time, aspects of what is or can be termed the gospel?
consiglieri Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 23 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: I think God may agree to a change of something if the membership plead for it AND such a change does not violate eternal laws or would go against God's plans on how to accomplish things. God however does not take polls on what to do or what direction he should follow. God does not bend his will to make people happy. We are to submit our will to God. Do I need to cite examples from the scriptures that counter your position? Like Moses pleading for the lives of the children of Israel? And God listened. Or Abraham pleading for the lives of those in Sodom? And God listened.
consiglieri Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: More substance-void posting. It's okay if you don't agree with me, Scott. I am just stating my opinion. And many do agree with me on this point.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 13, 2016 Author Posted January 13, 2016 1 minute ago, consiglieri said: Do I need to cite examples from the scriptures that counter your position? Like Moses pleading for the lives of the children of Israel? And God listened. Or Abraham pleading for the lives of those in Sodom? And God listened. I think you wrest the scriptures. From the LDS Bible Dictionary: Quote As soon as we learn the true relationship in which we stand toward God (namely, God is our Father, and we are His children), then at once prayer becomes natural and instinctive on our part (Matt. 7:7–11). Many of the so-called difficulties about prayer arise from forgetting this relationship. Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant but that are made conditional on our asking for them. Blessings require some work or effort on our part before we can obtain them. Prayer is a form of work and is an appointed means for obtaining the highest of all blessings. (Emphasis mine.)
smac97 Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 6 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Criticizing ideas is exactly what he approves of, if you feel it worth doing. I'm not criticizing to severely judge, censure, or fault find. I'm realy not sure how this piece is to apply. Have you read the article by Elder Oaks? Methinks you haven't, else you wouldn't be conflating what he differentiates. Thanks, -Smac
Thinking Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 Polygamy U.S. Government: Stop practicing polygamy. LDS Church: No. U.S. Government: Stop practicing polygamy. LDS Church: No. U.S. Government: Stop practicing polygamy. LDS Church: No. U.S. Government: Stop practicing polygamy or else you can't become a state. LDS Church: OK. U.S. Government: We're glad you finally listened to us. LDS Church: We didn't listen to you. God told us to stop. Blacks & The Priesthood Public: Ordain all worthy males to the priesthood. LDS Church: No. Public: Ordain all worthy males to the priesthood. LDS Church: No. Public: Ordain all worthy males to the priesthood. LDS Church: No. Public: Ordain all worthy males to the priesthood or ... LDS Church: OK. Public: We're glad you finally listened to us. LDS Church: We didn't listen to you. God told us to ordain all worthy males. 2
The Nehor Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 4 minutes ago, Thinking said: Public: Ordain all worthy males to the priesthood or ... LDS Church: OK. Public: We're glad you finally listened to us. LDS Church: We didn't listen to you. God told us to ordain all worthy males. Except there were only potential future threats. No active ones. And pressure for the church over the issue had actually ebbed in the late 70's. 1
Gray Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If it's merely a statement of opinion on your part, I can tolerate that, even as I disagree with it. But it seemed like a flat assertion of fact; hence my CFR. Thanks, I didn't mean it as an assertion of fact.
The Nehor Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 37 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: I think God may agree to a change of something if the membership plead for it AND such a change does not violate eternal laws or would go against God's plans on how to accomplish things. God however does not take polls on what to do or what direction he should follow. God does not bend his will to make people happy. We are to submit our will to God. Actually sometimes as a punishment he gives people what they want even if he does not think it wise. He usually warns them first. He lets people (Israelites, Jaredites, Nephites) have kings even when he thinks it is unwise. He let Martin Harris have the manuscript pages. And more. Of course these stories never end well so we should stick to seeking His will. 2
Gray Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: And pressure for the church over the issue had actually ebbed in the late 70's. I've heard this several times, but where is it coming from?
The Nehor Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 Just now, Gray said: I've heard this several times, but where is it coming from? History.
Russell C McGregor Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 2 minutes ago, Thinking said: Polygamy U.S. Government: Stop practicing polygamy. LDS Church: No. U.S. Government: Stop practicing polygamy. LDS Church: No. U.S. Government: Stop practicing polygamy. LDS Church: No. U.S. Government: Stop practicing polygamy or else you can't become a state. LDS Church: OK. Complete, utter distortion and misrepresentation. The actual dialogue went something like this: U.S. Government: We've dissolved you as an organisation and seized all your property, including your temples, so you can't practice polygamy any more anyway. LDS Church: Ok. The claim that it was done to secure statehood for Utah is false. It is also standard anti-Mormon boilerplate. 2 minutes ago, Thinking said: Blacks & The Priesthood Public: Ordain all worthy males to the priesthood. LDS Church: No. Public: Ordain all worthy males to the priesthood. LDS Church: No. Public: Ordain all worthy males to the priesthood. LDS Church: No. Public: Ordain all worthy males to the priesthood or ... Or what, exactly? 2 minutes ago, Thinking said: Public: Ordain all worthy males to the priesthood or ... LDS Church: OK. Public: We're glad you finally listened to us. LDS Church: We didn't listen to you. God told us to ordain all worthy males. Umm, Thinking, you seem to have missed the memo. The claim from your fellow anti-Mormons is that nobody is uttering this canard. Note that "canard" is the polite term for this. The less polite term has to do with organic fertiliser. 1
consiglieri Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Except there were only potential future threats. No active ones. And pressure for the church over the issue had actually ebbed in the late 70's. I think the historical record is pretty clear that a certain number of Church leaders needed to pass from the scene in order to gain the unanimity required. That takes time. And that is probably what pushed it out so far. If revelation were really revelation and not political unanimity, we wouldn't have had to wait so long. In fact, if revelation were really revelation, we never would have had the ban in the first place. 1
consiglieri Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gray said: Thanks, I didn't mean it as an assertion of fact. Most people understand the assertion of a particular position to be just an opinion, without the need for further clarification. It was obvious to me, at least, that you did not intend it as an assertion of fact. And I happen to agree with your opinion.
consiglieri Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think you wrest the scriptures. From the LDS Bible Dictionary: (Emphasis mine.) Oh, my, well if the LDS Bible Dictionary disagrees with the scriptures, what is a good Mormon to do? And what should I think when, as your example plainly shows, it is the LDS Bible Dictionary that is the one wresting the scriptures?
The Nehor Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gray said: "Stuff" Technically history is stuff so yes.
The Nehor Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 5 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I think the historical record is pretty clear that a certain number of Church leaders needed to pass from the scene in order to gain the unanimity required. That takes time. And that is probably what pushed it out so far. If revelation were really revelation and not political unanimity, we wouldn't have had to wait so long. In fact, if revelation were really revelation, we never would have had the ban in the first place. To be fair I am pretty sure I would have thought at the time that more leaders needed to die before unanimity would be possible. Elder McConkie had a ton of egg on his face afterwards.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 13, 2016 Author Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) 32 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Except there were only potential future threats. No active ones. And pressure for the church over the issue had actually ebbed in the late 70's. 29 minutes ago, Gray said: I've heard this several times, but where is it coming from? For my part it comes from my personal and very clear memory. I grew up in Utah (Salt Lake County) in the 50s and 60s and came of age in the early 70s. I was active in the Church growing up and paid earnest attention to how it was perceived in public. The protests against the Church over this issue are very vivid in my memory, including students wearing black arm bands at athletic contests involving BYU, throwing molotov cocktails onto the basketball floor, etc. By 1978, I had gone on and returned from a mission and had been a journalism student at BYU for years. Journalists, even student ones, tend to pay attention to current news events. The pressure and hostility toward the Church over this issue was nothing like it had been during my teenage years. You can discount my eyewitness if you like, but it is what it is. Edited January 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 13, 2016 Author Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) 25 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I think the historical record is pretty clear that a certain number of Church leaders needed to pass from the scene in order to gain the unanimity required. That takes time. And that is probably what pushed it out so far. Like which ones? Mark E. Peterson? Delbert L. Stapley? They are two apostles who have been criticized in the past (and not entirely without warrant) for making racist statements. They were both alive in 1978. Edited January 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted January 13, 2016 Author Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Oh, my, well if the LDS Bible Dictionary disagrees with the scriptures, what is a good Mormon to do? And what should I think when, as your example plainly shows, it is the LDS Bible Dictionary that is the one wresting the scriptures? Heh. If it's between your own exegesis and the Bible Dictionary, for me it's no contest. Edited January 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Recommended Posts