consiglieri Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) 32 minutes ago, busybee said: Straight answer consig - No I did not. Then I am happy to assist with your education. ETA: Thanks for the rep point, Busy Bee. That shows class. I would give you some in return but I can't do so right now because of the software or something. But I wanted you to know that just the same. Edited February 3, 2016 by consiglieri 1
busybee Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: I see you're from the UK? May I ask what part? I used to attend church in a ward in the midlands I'm in Chorley, Lancashire. In the shadow of the Preston Temple
consiglieri Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 2 minutes ago, busybee said: I'm in Chorley, Lancashire. In the shadow of the Preston Temple Okay, then, two more straight questions: 1. Do you think it appropriate for the leaders of any religious organization to suppress criticism of them or their actions? 2. Do you think it appropriate for the leaders of any religious organization to categorically say they do not offer apologies for anything?
Tacenda Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 1 minute ago, busybee said: I'm in Chorley, Lancashire. In the shadow of the Preston Temple I'll bet if you go to the Preston Temple you will meet my sister and brother in law on my husband's side. They are temple missionaries there now, they haven't been for very long. Hope that doesn't out me too much, but who cares, it has to come to that some day I guess.
busybee Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 51 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: We have a very recent example of how it has. Assuming you believe that baptism is a necessary part of salvation, criticism of church leaders' wording of the policy about prohibiting baptism of children having at least one parent in a same-sex relationship rapidly resulted in further clarification that had definitely affected the work of alleged salvation for children like mine, and the children of many other divorced families in our situation, by immediately resuming the allowance of baptisms, which had been briefly denied in the painful week between the initial policy's addition in the handbook and it's update a week or so later (there are several families' first-hand accounts of their immediate impact here and here). No-one has prohibited baptism of anyone. Their baptism has been deferred to a time in their lives when they will be able to make the covenants required with a better understanding. That is all. And it is disingenuous to imply that baptism has been prohibited. It never has and never will be. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 4 minutes ago, busybee said: I'm in Chorley, Lancashire. In the shadow of the Preston Temple Ahh...beautiful part of the country
ALarson Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 1 minute ago, busybee said: No-one has prohibited baptism of anyone. Yes they have. Children under 18 who live in the home of a SSM parent are prohibited from being baptized. Once they turn 18, they can be baptized under certain circumstances and stipulations. But until then, yes, their baptism is prohibited. Prohibit definition: Formally forbid (something) by law, rule, or other authority; prevent (something); make impossible. 3
HappyJackWagon Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, ALarson said: Yes they have. Children under 18 who live in the home of a SSM parent are prohibited from being baptized. Once they turn 18, they can be baptized under certain circumstances and stipulations. But until then, yes, their baptism is prohibited. Prohibit definition: Formally forbid (something) by law, rule, or other authority; prevent (something); make impossible. Very true. The prohibition may not last forever but it's still a prohibition. It reminds me of the civil rights era practice of county registrars prohibiting blacks from registering to vote while not really "prohibiting" them. The registrar would give additional tests which would allow them to prohibit participation while being able to say, "I didn't deny anyone access to the vote." They can register if/when they can pass the test. The policy is absolutely a prohibition. The fact that many people can't accept that shows how antithetical the prohibition is to the gospel of Christ. Edited February 3, 2016 by HappyJackWagon 2
busybee Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 13 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Okay, then, two more straight questions: 1. Do you think it appropriate for the leaders of any religious organization to suppress criticism of them or their actions? 2. Do you think it appropriate for the leaders of any religious organization to categorically say they do not offer apologies for anything? 1) I don't believe that they are suppressing criticism. If they are, it's obviously not working. I believe that it is unhealthy for the members of any organization to criticize the leaders publicly and I feel that is what Elder Oaks meant.(yes, I know, assuming etc etc., but surely we each use our insight in interpreting the things we hear.) I don't feel that the work of the church is helped at all when members openly criticize the leaders. There are correct channels to follow for those who have a problem with what the brethren are doing. Are those channels always completely free from the debris of human failing? Of course not. But I firmly believe that the church is in the Lord's hands and He leads the men who He has called to administer the affairs of His church. 2) I feel when the Lord wants His servants to apologize, it will happen. There are no examples of prophets apologizing in the scripture (to my admittedly limited knowledge). If you know of some please share. I don't believe anyone should have to apologise for something that they personally did not do. For example, I grew up in Apartheid South Africa. Do you believe I should apologise for what was done in the name of apartheid? Why should today's leaders apologise for previous leaders perceived mistakes? I also don't think it would be good for a religious organization to be offering apologies because where does one then draw the line. Will we soon be apologising for everything that someone doesn't agree with or perceives to be offensive. We might as well say 'Let's call the whole thing off' if that is going to be the case. 2
Gray Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 1 hour ago, Daniel2 said: We have a very recent example of how it has. Assuming you believe that baptism is a necessary part of salvation, criticism of church leaders' wording of the policy about prohibiting baptism of children having at least one parent in a same-sex relationship rapidly resulted in further clarification that had definitely affected the work of alleged salvation for children like mine, and the children of many other divorced families in our situation, by immediately resuming the allowance of baptisms, which had been briefly denied in the painful week between the initial policy's addition in the handbook and it's update a week or so later (there are several families' first-hand accounts of their immediate impact here and here). I think the idea that many people have is that the leaders of the church are immune from normal human psychology because of revelation. That's a superstition that can tank any organization.
busybee Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 15 minutes ago, ALarson said: Yes they have. Children under 18 who live in the home of a SSM parent are prohibited from being baptized. Once they turn 18, they can be baptized under certain circumstances and stipulations. But until then, yes, their baptism is prohibited. Prohibit definition: Formally forbid (something) by law, rule, or other authority; prevent (something); make impossible. Never mind
Gray Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 3 minutes ago, busybee said: I don't believe anyone should have to apologise for something that they personally did not do. For example, I grew up in Apartheid South Africa. Do you believe I should apologise for what was done in the name of apartheid? Why should today's leaders apologise for previous leaders perceived mistakes? I also don't think it would be good for a religious organization to be offering apologies because where does one then draw the line. Will we soon be apologising for everything that someone doesn't agree with or perceives to be offensive. We might as well say 'Let's call the whole thing off' if that is going to be the case. The Pope has apologized several times on behalf of the Catholic church. It's been very well received, even though it's understood that he didn't personally do any of the things apologized for. 1
busybee Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Very true. The prohibition may not last forever but it's still a prohibition. It reminds me of the civil rights era practice of county registrars prohibiting blacks from registering to vote while not really "prohibiting" them. The registrar would give additional tests which would allow them to prohibit participation while being able to say, "I didn't deny anyone access to the vote." They can register if/when they can pass the test. The policy is absolutely a prohibition. The fact that many people can't accept that shows how antithetical the prohibition is to the gospel of Christ. How can some people not see the 'prohibition' in some cases is for the benefit of the person being 'prohibited' or do you think your 8 year old should be allowed to drive your car?
Gray Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 2 minutes ago, busybee said: How can some people not see the 'prohibition' in some cases is for the benefit of the person being 'prohibited' or do you think your 8 year old should be allowed to drive your car? I've heard similar arguments trying to justify the priesthood ban
busybee Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 1 minute ago, Gray said: The Pope has apologized several times on behalf of the Catholic church. It's been very well received, even though it's understood that he didn't personally do any of the things apologized for. That is his prerogative. If he wants to accept responsibility for things he is not responsible for that is his business. Being in a position where an apology is demanded of me for something that I had no control over, it would be a very hollow apology if I were to give it. Am I sorry that people suffered? Of course I am. But how would an apology from me carry any weight if I had nothing to do with causing that suffering.
busybee Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gray said: I've heard similar arguments trying to justify the priesthood ban I lived in Africa during the priesthood ban. There was a reason for it.
ALarson Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, busybee said: How can some people not see the 'prohibition' in some cases is for the benefit of the person being 'prohibited' or do you think your 8 year old should be allowed to drive your car? Wow. Prohibiting blacks from voting was for "the benefit of the person being 'prohibited'"? Nope, don't see that. (And, I agree with you, Gray, that this sounds very similar to justifications given for the Priesthood ban.) Edited February 3, 2016 by ALarson
HappyJackWagon Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 4 minutes ago, busybee said: How can some people not see the 'prohibition' in some cases is for the benefit of the person being 'prohibited' or do you think your 8 year old should be allowed to drive your car? Silly analogy. But I'll try to work with it. I think my 16 year old who has a license should be able to drive my car. It is the standard. It applies to all 16 year olds with licenses who have authorization from their parent. If the church or government came in and said, we will not allow your 16 year old to drive because he's Mormon (or whatever), I would be opposed to the discriminatory practice even if they say he can drive when he turns 21. It's condescending for the church to tell the child and the parent what is best for them against their own wishes. When one person prohibits another, based on what he thinks is best for the other person or society at large, it is called discrimination. 2
ALarson Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 2 minutes ago, busybee said: I lived in Africa during the priesthood ban. There was a reason for it. Care to elaborate? I'd love to hear the reason. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 3 minutes ago, busybee said: I lived in Africa during the priesthood ban. There was a reason for it. Which was?
thesometimesaint Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 2 minutes ago, ALarson said: Wow. Prohibiting blacks from voting was for "the benefit of the person"? Nope, don't see that. Where has the Church ever said that? Priesthood is not a matter for public votes. 1
ALarson Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 Just now, thesometimesaint said: Where has the Church ever said that? Priesthood is not a matter for public votes. The Church hasn't, but busybee did above (I was quoting her).
busybee Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 Just now, ALarson said: Wow. Prohibiting blacks from voting was for "the benefit of the person"? Nope, don't see that. Who said anything about that? I said in SOME CASES it is for the benefit of the person being prohibited. Or do you think teenagers should be allowed to drink alcohol or smoke tobacco or do anything else they want to do, but are prohibited from doing until they are older? We are way off topic here BTW
busybee Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 3 minutes ago, ALarson said: The Church hasn't, but busybee did above (I was quoting her). Where did I say that?????
ALarson Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 Just now, busybee said: Who said anything about that? I said in SOME CASES it is for the benefit of the person being prohibited. Or do you think teenagers should be allowed to drink alcohol or smoke tobacco or do anything else they want to do, but are prohibited from doing until they are older? We are way off topic here BTW You wrote that in response to Happy's example of blacks being prohibited from voting (you quoted him and then responded). If that was in error, I understand. Are you seriously comparing someone being baptized into the church and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost to the dangers of teenagers drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco? (And, yes we are off topic, and maybe this should be a separate thread.)
Recommended Posts