Oaks talks about bad things coming during Provo temple dedication

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

It gives a great view of life during these times, women's rights were not non existent, no one was crass enough to kill their unborn child. 

You believe that "no one" was having abortions back then?

[Gray]

55 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Pretty little pictures, do the homicide rate of Oakland or Stockton or Richmond California from the 1950's to 2016.

 

 

The trends seem to be the same all over. There was elevated murder and violent crime rates from the 60s-90s, and it has gone down dramatically since then. 

There was quite a high murder rate in the south in the 19th century. Overall the trend over the last several centuries is downward, with a few spikes. 

Edited March 22, 2016 by Gray

[consiglieri]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

Jesus actually goes by quite a few titles when it's necessary. 

But I don't believe that any of the men in question would require someone to refer to them with a specific title. Do you believe they would?

Some, absolutely.

I heard a story about Elder Bednar the other day that surprised me.

Elder Bednar was attending a mission conference and some of the missionaries had formed a choir to sing a special song in his honor as he came in.

The mission choir was standing as they sang and Elder Bednar came into the chapel during the song and sat down in front of them.

When the singing was over, the choir sat down, too.

Elder Bednar took the stand, turned around to the choir, and said, "Did you see what I did?"

Everyone was confused.

Elder Bednar continued, "Did you see what I did?  I sat down.  When I sit down, you sit down.  You follow me."

The confusion increased.

He was apparently upbraiding the choir for remaining standing while they finished the song instead of sitting down when Elder Bednar sat down.

It was not entirely clear why Elder Bednar was choosing to make such a big point of this, but it seemed important to him to do so.

I have this story from one of the missionaries who was in the choir.  It is this RM who recounts this experience as being the beginning of his road out of the LDS Church.

So, in answer to your question, yes, I do think there are some Church leaders who would probably require they be addressed by a specific title.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, busybee said:

Hardly comparable, but anyway...

The young people in the countries where I have lived have and still do refer to church leaders using their correct titles. I, as a non-US person, have no feelings of reverence for the present or past Presidents of the US. The prophets and apostles, however, are God's representatives to the world, not just the US, and as such deserve all the respect that members of the church can muster.

Which is, apparently in your case, not enough to refer to them by their full names or titles. 

Speaking as a U.S. citizen, I'll agree with busybee here, and add that within a non-academic, Church setting, such as worship services, classes, or even informal discussions among professing Church members, it sounds cold, unfriendly and jarring for General Authorities to be referred to with surname only.  i expect to see it here on this message board from time to time, but only from authors who, consistent with overall attitude, are deliberately trying to seem undeferential. Coming from professing Latter-day Saints, it comes across as harsh and discordant. And that goes for persons of any age.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Some, absolutely.

I heard a story about Elder Bednar the other day that surprised me.

Elder Bednar was attending a mission conference and some of the missionaries had formed a choir to sing a special song in his honor as he came in.

The mission choir was standing as they sang and Elder Bednar came into the chapel during the song and sat down in front of them.

When the singing was over, the choir sat down, too.

Elder Bednar took the stand, turned around to the choir, and said, "Did you see what I did?"

Everyone was confused.

Elder Bednar continued, "Did you see what I did?  I sat down.  When I sit down, you sit down.  You follow me."

The confusion increased.

He was apparently upbraiding the choir for remaining standing while they finished the song instead of sitting down when Elder Bednar sat down.

It was not entirely clear why Elder Bednar was choosing to make such a big point of this, but it seemed important to him to do so.

I have this story from one of the missionaries who was in the choir.  It is this RM who recounts this experience as being the beginning of his road out of the LDS Church.

So, in answer to your question, yes, I do think there are some Church leaders who would probably require they be addressed by a specific title.

Until such time as you can document this, I'll put it in the category of highly questionable rumor.

With that said, I'll somewhat agree with you that use of ecclesiastical titles within a Church setting is important to at least some of the leaders. But I don't believe they intend to put on airs or arrogate themselves in any way. Rather, I think they believe that an atmosphere of decorum is necessary, and that they are more apt to require it for their brethren than for themselves.

 

Edited March 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Speaking as a U.S. citizen, I'll agree with busybee here, and add that within a non-academic, Church setting, such as worship services, classes, or even informal discussions among professing Church members, it sounds cold, unfriendly and jarring for General Authorities to be referred to with surname only.  i expect to see it here on this message board from time to time, but only from authors who, because of overall attitude, are deliberately trying to seem undeferential. Coming from professing Latter-day Saints, it comes across as harsh, like a dissonant chord. And that goes for persons of any age.

I disagree.  I don't think you or busy bee (as much as I respect both of you) have the authority to set the standard for what is respectful behavior on this issue and what isn't. 

I say that with no snark intended. We each can set our own standards, and of course follow cultural standards, but any line we draw beyond that, and any judgements we make on others beyond that, is overstepping our jurisdiction.  

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Some, absolutely.

I heard a story about Elder Bednar the other day that surprised me.

Elder Bednar was attending a mission conference and some of the missionaries had formed a choir to sing a special song in his honor as he came in.

The mission choir was standing as they sang and Elder Bednar came into the chapel during the song and sat down in front of them.

When the singing was over, the choir sat down, too.

Elder Bednar took the stand, turned around to the choir, and said, "Did you see what I did?"

Everyone was confused.

Elder Bednar continued, "Did you see what I did?  I sat down.  When I sit down, you sit down.  You follow me."

The confusion increased.

He was apparently upbraiding the choir for remaining standing while they finished the song instead of sitting down when Elder Bednar sat down.

It was not entirely clear why Elder Bednar was choosing to make such a big point of this, but it seemed important to him to do so.

I have this story from one of the missionaries who was in the choir.  It is this RM who recounts this experience as being the beginning of his road out of the LDS Church.

So, in answer to your question, yes, I do think there are some Church leaders who would probably require they be addressed by a specific title.

This is difficult to believe, because it does not match his behavior at other times. 

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I disagree.  I don't think you or busy bee (as much as I respect both of you) have the authority to set the standard for what is respectful behavior on this issue and what isn't. 

 

I'm not claiming authority. I'm saying how it comes across to me.

And I don't believe busybee and I are by any means alone in this.

The nature of communication is such that none of us is altogether free to use any manner of expression we like without considering potential consequences, including putting off listeners or readers.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is difficult to believe, because it does not match his behavior at other times. 

I don't know.  Didn't he also say "I am scripture" or something like that?  (But, the other example above does sound extreme...maybe the young missionary misunderstood what Elder Bednar was referring to...)

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I don't know.  Didn't he also say "I am scripture" or something like that?  (But, the other example above does sound extreme...maybe the young missionary misunderstood what Elder Bednar was referring to...)

If I remember right he was quoted on this board as saying something like that, but the actual quote was different.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

If I remember right he was quoted on this board as saying something like that, but the actual quote was different.

If you can find it, I would like to see it. At the moment it sounds like yet more irresponsible rumor.

Edited to add:

I did a Google search and came up with a few hits. But all of them appear to be passing along hearsay, second-hand, third-hand and beyond. In other words, rumor mongering.

Can anyone here come up with a direct and documented quote?

Edited March 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[BlueDreams]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Speaking as a U.S. citizen, I'll agree with busybee here, and add that within a non-academic, Church setting, such as worship services, classes, or even informal discussions among professing Church members, it sounds cold, unfriendly and jarring for General Authorities to be referred to with surname only.  i expect to see it here on this message board from time to time, but only from authors who, consistent with overall attitude, are deliberately trying to seem undeferential. Coming from professing Latter-day Saints, it comes across as harsh and discordant. And that goes for persons of any age.

That's odd to me. It was only on accident that I put Elder before Packer and Ballard. I didn't for Oaks. I do both interchangeably without thinking about it. Honestly I don't find it harsh or dissonant and I'm unaware of anyone who would assume I was being disrespectful

 

On a side note, I just finished the first shift at the PCCT. Got there around 5:15 and there was already a line well into the parking lot waiting for the 6 am opening 

with luv,

bd

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not claiming authority. I'm saying how it comes across to me.

And I don't believe busybee and I are by any means alone in this.

Busy bee at least requested that someone change their behavior in order to fit their personal beliefs about what is respectful and what isn't.  When the person disagreed with BB about the need to change their behavior, Busybee then judged the person as not respecting the leaders of the church.

Beyond Busybee though, your own words have not being very charitable on this issue.  Maybe i can use some examples to help you gain some perspective.

For example, Muslims believe that drawing pictures of God or His prophet is very very disrespectful.  But you don't believe that, and further, i've never seen you champion the idea that their beliefs should impact your own beliefs.  We've also had posters here on this board at different times (Dr. Stuess was one for a while) who believed it was disrespectful to type out the word "God" and would instead type G-d.  But you didn't stop typing out the full word, regardless of how they felt about it.  

Given that, do you really believe it is fair or just to say that the only people who don't keep your personal standard of etiquette on this issue are those"deliberately trying to seem undeferential"?

[mtomm]

9 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

That's odd to me. It was only on accident that I put Elder before Packer and Ballard. I didn't for Oaks. I do both interchangeably without thinking about it. Honestly I don't find it harsh or dissonant and I'm unaware of anyone who would assume I was being disrespectful

 

On a side note, I just finished the first shift at the PCCT. Got there around 5:15 and there was already a line well into the parking lot waiting for the 6 am opening 

with luv,

bd

I think people will shorten what they type and thus leave out titles if they are typing on their phone or tablet and not from a computer keyboard. I know I try to find short cuts in such situations.

Edited March 22, 2016 by mtomm

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

 

 

The trends seem to be the same all over. There was elevated murder and violent crime rates from the 60s-90s, and it has gone down dramatically since then. 

There was quite a high murder rate in the south in the 19th century. Overall the trend over the last several centuries is downward, with a few spikes. 

How does today's terrorist attack in Brussels fit your paradigm? 30 dead 180 wounded, yeah it's really safe out there. The California Murder rate is still not as low as the early 60s.

Edited March 22, 2016 by rodheadlee

[Ahab]

17 hours ago, juliann said:

I merely asked a question. You seem a tad irritated.

I don't think people are becoming more corrupt and wicked. And until you are willing to be a Jew under Hitler, you don't either.  Unless you have a different and measurable basis, stats tell a different story. I think someone already mentioned that. At the very least, you are going to have to use a lot more nuance to be convincing. It all depends on how much you benefit from the status quo as to how bad you judge changes to be. 

Yeah I do tend to get at least a tad irritated when I'm talking about and thinking about bad things that happen and the people who cause those bad things to happen. And people who act as if everything is always hunky dory as well.

Not that some really bad things didn't happen in the past that are worse than the general run of the mill bad things that are happening now.  And not that things in general now are worse than they ever have been before. But still a lot of really bad things are happening and are going to continue to happen and I am generally not a happy camper about it all.

I'd much rather see nothing but good things happening with nobody intentionally doing bad things.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Busy bee at least requested that someone change their behavior in order to fit their personal beliefs about what is respectful and what isn't.  When the person disagreed with BB about the need to change their behavior, Busybee then judged the person as not respecting the leaders of the church.

I won't presume to speak or answer for busybee.

 

Quote

 

Beyond Busybee though, your own words have not being very charitable on this issue.  Maybe i can use some examples to help you gain some perspective.

For example, Muslims believe that drawing pictures of God or His prophet is very very disrespectful.  But you don't believe that, and further, i've never seen you champion the idea that their beliefs should impact your own beliefs.  We've also had posters here on this board at different times (Dr. Stuess was one for a while) who believed it was disrespectful to type out the word "God" and would instead type G-d.  But you didn't stop typing out the full word, regardless of how they felt about it.  

 

 

As I have intimated, setting and circumstances make some difference. I mentioned that the Joseph Smith Papers volumes routinely refer to Church leaders with surname only. That doesn't bother me. In this they are following accepted academic conventions, conventions that might not prevail in other settings.

If what you say about Muslims is true, and if I were writing primarily to a group of Muslims, I'm quite certain I would avoid behavior that would be apt to antagonize them. Likewise, if I knew I was writing primarily to a group of people who didn't like the word God written out, I would avoid doing that as well.

When addressing or referring to leaders of other religious faiths, depending on the setting, I am apt to use their ecclesiastical titles such as Reverend, Bishop, Cardinal, Rabbi, Imam, etc., even though I am not part of their faith group. I would do it out of courtesy and respect. And in the interest of good communication.

Quote

Given that, do you really believe it is fair or just to say that the only people who don't keep your personal standard of etiquette on this issue are those"deliberately trying to seem undeferential"?

No. Nor have I said that.

I grant that in some instances it might be just a matter of thoughtlessness; in others a simple lack of awareness. Or just plain disagreement with the concept or value of being deferential.

I wonder if, speaking from the pulpit in a Church meeting or conference with, say, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles seated on the stand, you would would be apt to refer to General Authorities with surname only.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Busy bee at least requested that someone change their behavior in order to fit their personal beliefs about what is respectful and what isn't.  When the person disagreed with BB about the need to change their behavior, Busybee then judged the person as not respecting the leaders of the church.

Beyond Busybee though, your own words have not being very charitable on this issue.  Maybe i can use some examples to help you gain some perspective.

For example, Muslims believe that drawing pictures of God or His prophet is very very disrespectful.  But you don't believe that, and further, i've never seen you champion the idea that their beliefs should impact your own beliefs.  We've also had posters here on this board at different times (Dr. Stuess was one for a while) who believed it was disrespectful to type out the word "God" and would instead type G-d.  But you didn't stop typing out the full word, regardless of how they felt about it.  

Given that, do you really believe it is fair or just to say that the only people who don't keep your personal standard of etiquette on this issue are those"deliberately trying to seem undeferential"?

It is not about a " personal standard of etiquette".  It is what is acceptable for the circumstances.  I don't think that if you were in a meeting with God that you would blurt out "hey pops".  There are some circumstances and people that one should hold in greater respect.

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

That's odd to me. It was only on accident that I put Elder before Packer and Ballard. I didn't for Oaks. I do both interchangeably without thinking about it. Honestly I don't find it harsh or dissonant and I'm unaware of anyone who would assume I was being disrespectful

 

Well, now you know that some might.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[VideoGameJunkie]

3 hours ago, ERayR said:

 

Tell me which one it is.  I have my own list that I think can and will bring on the calamities associated with that event but I am in no hurry to bring it on.

Trump. All out world War 3 possibilities which will include nuclear weapons.

[ksfisher]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you can find it, I would like to see it. At the moment it sounds like yet more irresponsible rumor.

Edited to add:

I did a Google search and came up with a few hits. But all of them appear to be passing along hearsay, second-hand, third-hand and beyond. In other words, rumor mongering.

Can anyone here come up with a direct and documented quote?

I don't know how to easily find it.  There are too many comments about Elder Bednar on this board (a surprising number of them negative, some people just don't like him) to be able to find the quote.  If I recall correctly it was Calm who was able to place Elder Bednar's comments in the correct context (but memory is always such a tricky thing).

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

How does today's terrorist attack in Brussels fit your paradigm? 30 dead 180 wounded, yeah it's really safe out there. The California Murder rate is still not as low as the early 60s.

The likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack is low - 1 in 20 million. Terrorist attacks are scary but low on the list of things likely to kill you. 

Long term trends for violent crime are very positive:

 

http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/

 

[ERayR]

3 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Trump. All out world War 3 possibilities which will include nuclear weapons.

As I see it he is one of the least worrisome.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't know how to easily find it.  There are too many comments about Elder Bednar on this board (a surprising number of them negative, some people just don't like him) to be able to find the quote.  If I recall correctly it was Calm who was able to place Elder Bednar's comments in the correct context (but memory is always such a tricky thing).

Well, maybe Calm, who can sleuth out a reference faster and better than anyone I know, can come on here and help us.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I grant that in some instances it might be just a matter of thoughtlessness; in others a simple lack of awareness. Or just plain disagreement with the concept or value of being deferential.

Bingo!  

Quote

I wonder if, speaking from the pulpit in a Church meeting or conference with, say, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles seated on the stand, you would would be apt to refer to General Authorities with surname only.

I don't know.  I guess i'll have to ask myself WWEH do the next time in that situation.