Terryl Givens on What It Means to Sustain

[Mystery Meat]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So would it be your preference that people who want to attend the temple, but have a different interpretation of some words, should be prohibited from attending?

If they can't answer them honestly or they way they were intended, then yes. I think that goes without saying. If their definition/interpretation conflicts with the one provided by those in authority, then of course. 

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Curious about what people think of this. It's something I'm wrestling with now. 

I have read a great deal of Terryl Givens and listened to hours of podcasts and interviews from both him and his lovely wife, Fiona.

I think they both have much to say that is very good.

Still, I can't help shake the impression Terryl is doing the equivalent of tap-dancing across quicksand.

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I doubt the early members of the church were any more obedient than the modern ones. 

Or if they were also blamed when prophesying, seeing, and revealing failed.

[CA Steve]

21 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

If they can't answer them honestly or they way they were intended, then yes. I think that goes without saying. If their definition/interpretation conflicts with the one provided by those in authority, then of course. 

Honestly, I find it dishonest when you label someone else as dishonest based on your opinion of how they should honestly answer a question.

 

[Mystery Meat]

8 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Honestly, I find it dishonest when you label someone else as dishonest based on your opinion of how they should honestly answer a question.

 

That's fair.

I just don't care 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I would venture to say that there would be a lot more "prophesying, seeing, and revealing" from our modern prophets, seers, and revelators if we, as members of the Lord's church, were more obedient to what had already been "prophesied, seen, and revealed." 

The major emphasis from the brethren lately has been on keeping the Sabbath day holy.  If we can't even do something so basic as that I don't think we're ready for any of the deeper mysteries of the kingdom.

Super Bowl Sunday, anyone?

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Super Bowl Sunday, anyone?

Go Broncos?

I hope you're not saying it's wrong to watch the Super Bowl (as long as you don't miss your meetings to watch it)?

 

 

Edited February 5, 2016 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

On this matter of demanding more "thus saith the Lord" pronouncements, some people perhaps should be more careful about what they demand; they may get it. 

We saw what happened of late when the president of the Quotum of the Twelve Apostles declared very clearly that the new Church policy is of God. There was first a very shrill hue and cry followed by some unseemly murmuring to the effect that he wasn't <really> speaking on behalf of his brethren. 

New revelation? They can't handle new revelation. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Go Broncos?

i hope you're not saying it's wrong to watch the Suoer Bowl (as long as you don't miss your meetings to watch it)?

 

 

When I was on my mission back in the days of the rainbow discussions, part of the script was, "We should also avoid activities that aren't in keeping with the Sabbath, such as movies, outings and sports" (translating here as best I can from the Swedish in which I memorized it). 

You may make of that what you will. 

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When I was on my mission back in the days of the rainbow discussions, part of the script was, "We should also avoid activities that aren't in keeping with the Sabbath, such as movies, outings and sports" (translating here as best I can from the Swedish in which I memorized it). 

You may make of that what you will. 

If you feel it's wrong to watch the Super Bowl, you shouldn't.  I respect that.

We all get together as a family and watch it together.  We have such a great family time and it's a tradition.  I firmly believe it's in keeping with a Sabbath day activity.  Good food, great company, lasting family memories.  It's something we all look forward to.  

Also, if you're not into football or sports, I understand that too.  I feel it's important not to judge.  Each of us should do what feels right for us and our families.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, JulieM said:

If you feel it's wrong to watch the Super Bowl, you shouldn't.  I respect that.

We all get together as a family and watch it together.  We have such a great family time and it's a tradition.  I firmly believe it's in keeping with a Sabbath day activity.  Good food, great company, lasting family memories.  It's something we all look forward to.  

Also, if you're not into football or sports, I understand that too.  I feel it's important not to judge.  Each of us should do what feels right for us and our families.

I realize it has become a sensitive and controversial issue. 

With the Brethren reemphasizng Sabbath observance, perhaps it is time for some reevaluation and stock taking in a variety of areas. Obviously they feel some improvement is needed or they wouldn't be doing it. 

[JulieM]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I realize it has become a sensitive and controversial issue. 

With the Brethren reemphasizng Sabbath observance, perhaps it is time for some reevaluation and stock taking in a variety of areas. Obviously they feel some improvement is needed or they wouldn't be doing it. 

Most likely, but I've not heard them mention watching a football game on TV.   Going out and playing a football game, maybe. But again, if you feel it's wrong to watch the Super Bowl, I understand that you shouldn't.   That makes sense.

Edited February 5, 2016 by JulieM

[Raingirl]

51 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Most likely, but I've not heard them mention watching a football game on TV.   Going out and playing a football game, maybe. But again, if you feel it's wrong to watch the Super Bowl, I understand that you shouldn't.   That makes sense.

You're probably just not hearing that which you don't want to hear.

I converted from Judaism.  Orthodox, not the watered down versions of Judaism that don't even resemble Judaism anymore.  Keeping the Sabbath is actually a very simple concept, yet so many fail to grasp it.   And they are missing out on so much.  So very much.

Just because an activity is done with family doesn't make the activity appropriate for the Sabbath.  But any time someone even suggests that certain activities - such as Super Bowl games - do not honor the Sabbath, those who put their own personal desires above all else love to jump on their own judgmental bandwagon and cry out "It's important not to judge".

Any Mormon that would be willing to spend a Sabbath with an Orthodox Jewish family would have their eyes opened to a way of keeping the Sabbath that steps away from the world (for a full 25 hours, even) and truly honors the Sabbath.

But I'm not allowed to have these thoughts, much less express them, because then I would be "judging".

Oh, the hypocrisy.

[JulieM]

Just now, Raingirl said:

You're probably just not hearing that which you don't want to hear.

Nope, I really haven't heard it.

I firmly believe if someone feels that it's wrong to watch TV on Sunday or do other activities, then they shouldn't.  I'm not going to judge them for those feelings and for doing what they believe is right.

I have no issue with watching a good movie on TV or a football game on Sunday.  I would not go out and buy a ticket and attend a movie or a ballgame, but others might feel fine even doing that on Sunday.  And, I wouldn't judge them if they did.  It's none of my business.  I can only do what I believe is right.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

If they can't answer them honestly or they way they were intended, then yes. I think that goes without saying. If their definition/interpretation conflicts with the one provided by those in authority, then of course. 

And you're the one who knows how they were "intended"? What is the source of your information on intent?

ETA- I'm also interested in answers from Scott Lloyd and Mars since they liked MM's post about honesty and intent. I'm really eager to see how you all know the intent of the writers of those questions?

Edited February 5, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

If they can't answer them honestly or they way they were intended, then yes. I think that goes without saying. If their definition/interpretation conflicts with the one provided by those in authority, then of course. 

Who decides what way they were intended?

[rongo]

16 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

But it doesn't just come down to what the answerer believes. There are two parties involved: the interviewee and the Lord (via the Church). The fact that you or anyone think the Church is asking if you think these men have the title of prophet, seer and revealator without have the gift of prophecy, seership, or revealation is either naive or dishonest.

If the person is not answering the askers question in a way that circumvents the askers intent in asking the question in the first place, then, yes, that is dishonest. 

And the asker is not the Bishop, councilor or Stake President.

But the key holders sustain the answers and explanations given by granting the recommend, MM . . .

[rongo]

This is a very interesting topic (the opening post topic of what it means to sustain), and one that generates a lot of discussion (and disagreement).

We have a wonderful stake president whom everyone loves. His counselors are good men who are very zealous and at times are over-bearing. Sometimes, they use the concept of sustaining or unity as a stick to bring everyone in line, and the stake president above all else does not want conflict or contention --- so he always defers to his counselors and refuses to rein them in when they are adamant about something (which is always). This has led to some interesting experiences over the years.

Some chagrin results over the fact that sometimes the bishops strongly recommend that a stake action be taken or not be taken (when input and feedback is asked for) in opposition to the suggested action from the stake presidency. If strong objections or recommendations are made, the discussion turns into one of "Well, will you sustain the decision?" And the answer is, of course, yes, we will sustain it --- we will do our best to make it happen and not undermine it. In these cases, if the stake action was ill-advised, it falls apart and the opposition is "vindicated." On more than one occasion, I've reminded these counselors that "counseling with councils" isn't just a trite phrase, and when counsel is sought and disregarded, sometimes the results show that it would have been better to heed the counsel --- or at least to have considered it more. On one occasion, when we had a discussion about unity, I pointed out that unity does not mean unanimity --- and you could see the light bulbs going off in many heads. I pointed out that the 12 are united, but sometimes not unanimous in deliberation and discussion (I have many anecdotes I'm aware of) --- at least not initially. When the united quorum votes unanimously, then the quorum's decision is on equal footing and of equal authority with the unanimous vote of the Quorum of the First Presidency (cf. D&C 107), but not when it's not unanimous. But they are always united, even when they disagree about things. The thought that the stake presidency and bishops could be united even when they're not unanimous had never occurred to many (the actual item in question was a command that we hold cub scouts at 4:00. Most wards were holding it at 6:00 to accommodate work schedules, and we pointed out that there is no handbook requirement as to time and that that should be left up to the wards without micromanagement). 

I think it is admittedly very difficult to sustain things that one feels very strongly against (e.g., if one feels very strongly against the new policy/revelation regarding children in gay marriage families). My own views accord with the Brethren's on this, but I would similarly struggle if the Church embraced gay marriage, allowed women to be ordained to priesthood offices, etc. So I can empathize with those who believe that the Church is true, but have serious disagreements with policy or some doctrines. Sustaining in this case is a very tough issue.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think it is admittedly very difficult to sustain things that one feels very strongly against

I think sustaining is only going to be applied and work as intended as we become as little children.

“For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.” (Mosiah 3:19)

The Lord Himself said, “And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things*. And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.”

* The things that are to be received are in verses 10 onward: the testimony of Jesus, the blessings of the Atonement, the servants He called to minister to His people (and the ordinances they perform and the teachings they deliver), the spirit of charity (and not contention), the record and witness of Jesus, and the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost. These are the doctrine of Christ.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And you're the one who knows how they were "intended"? What is the source of your information on intent?

ETA- I'm also interested in answers from Scott Lloyd and Mars since they liked MM's post about honesty and intent. I'm really eager to see how you all know the intent of the writers of those questions?

I repped his post because I wholeheartedly agree with it, bearing in mind prominent apostate John Dehlin's efforts to teach people in effect to lie to get a temple recommend, to wit:

 

Quote

 

 Fortunately, when they ask about Jesus and the Atonement, they don't go into this detail. Instead, they simply ask if you have a testimony of Jesus as your savior (or something to that effect). 

Well, at a minimum, I do believe that a man named Jesus once existed, that his teachings have "saved" me from much trouble, pain, and sadness in my life, and that He ultimately died as a martyr for these teachings. 

So at a minimum, I accept Jesus as my personal savior in this manner. I'm also very open, and even hopeful, that there is much, much more to the story. Again, this is called faith and hope.

I will admit that there is much about the mechanics of the Atonement and the afterlife that I do not understand, but fortunately I am not alone in this regard (by any stretch). Who really understands the Atonement? I would argue that no human really does

 

There is more, but this is a fairly representative sample. It amounts to an effort to sneak into the temple by effectively redefining doctrines in one's own mind, stripping the questions of their essential meaning 

Edited February 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Mystery Meat]

17 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And you're the one who knows how they were "intended"? What is the source of your information on intent?

ETA- I'm also interested in answers from Scott Lloyd and Mars since they liked MM's post about honesty and intent. I'm really eager to see how you all know the intent of the writers of those questions?

Sorry for the delay.

I think they are patently obvious on their (the TR questions) face what they mean when viewed in context of the doctrines we uphold and are taught. In other words if you are asked by a church representative if you have a testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet I think it is rational to understand that that means that you have a testimony of the first vision, Joseph Smith's call to restore the Church and his priesthood authority, not if you have a testimony that he was a good man, well intentioned, if nothing else, but doubt his claim to authority from on high.

Likewise, if you are asked by a church representative if you sustain Thomas S. Monson as prophet, seer and revealator, I think it is only reasonable (and honest) to apply what the Church teaches about those words, offices and source of authority when answering the question. Do we say or are we taught that those titles are simply given to President Monson because he is the President of the Church and within the Church structure the President of the Church is also given the title of prophet, seer and revealator? The very thought is laughable. Rather we are taught nearly every week that President Monson is God's mouth piece on earth, that he has the same authority as Moses, Samuel or even Joseph Smith, and that the Prophet is entitled to use and rely on every spiritual gift, including prophecy and seership. To answer in the affirmative because you believe he has been named the President of the Church and, therefore, under the laws of the state of Utah and the church's governing documents he has corporate and organizational authority to lead and direct the affairs of the corporation, including giving himself titles such as prophet, seer and revealator is, like I said, dishonest. It divorces the doctrines surrounding the principal from the question itself; the temple recommend interview then becoming the ONLY time in a Church setting where the actuality of the Prophet's authority, not from the state or a piece of paper, but from God himself, is, more or less, not important.

This would be akin to me going to a class required for prospective citizens of a democratic republic. At this class it is being taught by a teacher that a democratic republic is one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens, and the government itself is run through elected officials, and that such system of government is the most noble form of government. Citizenship is conditioned on agreeing to uphold the values of this government. Then following the lesson, the teacher's aide administers an interview and asks, "do you sustain the mode of government known as a democratic republic, as the most noble system of government?", and then in my mind saying something to the effect of, "well, I think all governments are equally noble, so in effect, they are all the most noble" and blurting out "yes, I do think it is the most noble."

It twists the obvious intent of the question to the point of absurdity. And the only reason I can think of for so doing is to enjoy the privileges associated therewith, such as being able to attend a family member's wedding in the temple. 

I am sure if you thought back to a time before you doubted the truth claims of the church and had risen to the status of a NOM that you too would see the obvious intent of the question and that your answer is an attempt to circumvent it by manipulating and twisting words.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Mystery Meat

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I repped his post because I wholeheartedly agree with it, bearing in mind prominent apostate John Dehlin's efforts to teach people in effect to lie to get a temple recommend, to wit:

 

There is more, but this is a fairly representative sample. It amounts to an effort to sneak into the temple by effectively redefining doctrines in one's own mind, stripping the questions of their essential meaning 

That's not what we're talking about here. I, and I don't think anyone else has, mentioned John Dehlin's approach. What we have been talking about is having a conversation with our leader who is interviewing, explaining how we view the question and then giving an answer. At that point the leader then has the opportunity to accept or reject our answer based on what we've described.

This is the process MysteryMeat claims is dishonest and which you agreed with.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Sorry for the delay.

I think they are patently obvious on their (the TR questions) face what they mean when viewed in context of the doctrines we uphold and are taught. In other words if you are asked by a church representative if you have a testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet I think it is rational to understand that that means that you have a testimony of the first vision, Joseph Smith's call to restore the Church and his priesthood authority, not if you have a testimony that he was a good man, well intentioned, if nothing else, but doubt his claim to authority from on high.

Likewise, if you are asked by a church representative if you sustain Thomas S. Monson as prophet, seer and revealator, I think it is only reasonable (and honest) to apply what the Church teaches about those words, offices and source of authority when answering the question. Do we say or are we taught that those titles are simply given to President Monson because he is the President of the Church and within the Church structure the President of the Church is also given the title of prophet, seer and revealator? The very thought is laughable. Rather we are taught nearly every week that President Monson is God's mouth piece on earth, that he has the same authority as Moses, Samuel or even Joseph Smith, and that the Prophet is entitled to use and rely on every spiritual gift, including prophecy and seership. To answer in the affirmative because you believe he has been named the President of the Church and, therefore, under the laws of the state of Utah and the church's governing documents he has corporate and organizational authority to lead and direct the affairs of the corporation, including giving himself titles such as prophet, seer and revealator is, like I said, dishonest. It divorces the doctrines surrounding the principal from the question itself; the temple recommend interview then becoming the ONLY time in a Church setting where the actuality of the Prophet's authority, not from the state or a piece of paper, but from God himself, is, more or less, not important.

This would be akin to me going to a class required for prospective citizens of a democratic republic. At this class it is being taught by a teacher that a democratic republic is one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens, and the government itself is run through elected officials, and that such system of government is the most noble form of government. Citizenship is conditioned on agreeing to uphold the values of this government. Then following the lesson, the teacher's aide administers an interview and asks, "do you sustain the mode of government known as a democratic republic, as the most noble system of government?", and then in my mind saying something to the effect of, "well, I think all governments are equally noble, so in effect, they are all the most noble" and blurting out "yes, I do think it is the most noble."

It twists the obvious intent of the question to the point of absurdity. And the only reason I can think of for so doing is to enjoy the privileges associated therewith, such as being able to attend a family member's wedding in the temple. 

I am sure if you thought back to a time before you doubted the truth claims of the church and had risen to the status of a NOM that you too would see the obvious intent of the question and that your answer is an attempt to circumvent it by manipulating and twisting words.

 

(1) Calling something patently obvious is pretty funny. It's akin to saying "I'm right because obviously my view is the way you should view things too." Very simplistic and juvenile.

(2) This is not what is asked

(3) "It is only reasonable" to only use the narrow definition of prophet that you understand according to the teachings you've received? This seems fairly arrogant.

(4) and is there only was interpretation for what it means to be "God's mouthpiece"? Does this mean the words he speaks are exactly God's words? Is the prophet like a speakerphone for God and we know that what we hear is exactly God's will? Or does the prophet meet with God personally? Daily, weekly, monthly, annually?

(5) Does being "entitled" to use spiritual gifts mean that he actually uses them? Do you have any examples for how he has used these spiritual gifts to "See" different times and places or translate ancient records?

OK- I don't have the interest to review your entire post.

I'll just end by saying that your view of what a prophet, seer and revelator is is just fine with me. I accept your interpretation, understanding and belief as being good for you. What I refuse to accept is arrogant claims that your understanding is the only honest understanding. I think we've beat this horse enough.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's not what we're talking about here. I, and I don't think anyone else has, mentioned John Dehlin's approach. What we have been talking about is having a conversation with our leader who is interviewing, explaining how we view the question and then giving an answer. At that point the leader then has the opportunity to accept or reject our answer based on what we've described.

This is the process MysteryMeat claims is dishonest and which you agreed with.

I think I've made my position clear in my response post.

And I wholeheartedly agree with MysteryMeat's post following mine -- to which I also gave a rep point and which I note you could not be bothered to read and consider in its entirety.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 2/5/2016 at 11:34 PM, Raingirl said:

You're probably just not hearing that which you don't want to hear.

I converted from Judaism.  Orthodox, not the watered down versions of Judaism that don't even resemble Judaism anymore.  Keeping the Sabbath is actually a very simple concept, yet so many fail to grasp it.   And they are missing out on so much.  So very much.

Just because an activity is done with family doesn't make the activity appropriate for the Sabbath.  But any time someone even suggests that certain activities - such as Super Bowl games - do not honor the Sabbath, those who put their own personal desires above all else love to jump on their own judgmental bandwagon and cry out "It's important not to judge".

Any Mormon that would be willing to spend a Sabbath with an Orthodox Jewish family would have their eyes opened to a way of keeping the Sabbath that steps away from the world (for a full 25 hours, even) and truly honors the Sabbath.

But I'm not allowed to have these thoughts, much less express them, because then I would be "judging".

Oh, the hypocrisy.

For our year-end Church News issue, I asked my friend Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, professor of Church history and doctrine at BYU, to write a short piece for us on our year-end theme, Sabbath day observance.

What he wrote was very enlightening. It strikes me that we as Latter-day Saints might have a lot to learn from our Jewish brothers and sisters as it pertains to calling the Sabbath "a delight" (see the passage in Isaiah) and truly being edified from our Sabbath day observance.