stemelbow Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Well if you haven't been made privy to the reason, then, by definition, you wouldn't know of one. That doesn't mean there are none. Perhaps what you mean to say is that you can't imagine one. Again, that doesn't mean there are no conceivable reasons. That I can't conceive of a reason suggests there aren't any conceivable reasons, unless someone has one to offer.
consiglieri Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: If we should have faith that his leaders made the correct call in regard to having an interpreter there, then why should we not have the same level of confidence in the timing of the council? Why on earth do you think "we should have faith" in anything Jeremy's leaders did?
consiglieri Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 58 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Well if you haven't been made privy to the reason, then, by definition, you wouldn't know of one. That doesn't mean there are none. Perhaps what you mean to say is that you can't imagine one. Again, that doesn't mean there are no conceivable reasons. Where would Mormon apologists be without the argument from silence?
Scott Lloyd Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: That I can't conceive of a reason suggests there aren't any conceivable reasons, unless someone has one to offer. The only thing it suggests is that you lack imagination. And I'm not going to get drawn into the trap of making conjectures about reasons, as that's the sort of thing here that seems to set some people off. 1
consiglieri Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Telling someone he should admit that he is wrong presupposes that he is wrong. If he doesn't believe that, why should he admit it? And someone who can't even conceive of the possibility that he may be wrong is usually not worth having a discussion with.
consiglieri Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: As I just said in response to someone else, conceivably there could be unique occasions when the handbook ought to be overridden by good judgment made in the moment and sustained by the Spirit. So even when Church leaders go against the handbook, they are right. I'm afraid you seem to be playing with a stacked deck, Scott.
Meadowchik Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: So instead we err on the side of publicly judging and pillorying the stake president, who presumably is better acquainted with the circumstances than anyone commenting here? That doesn't strike me as a very appealing alternative. The erring referred to here is what I despise so much about publicized conflict...the reactions can be more of confirmation bias than genuine concern and so much can get lost in the transfer of information. I've talked about our family's semi-public conflict with our renters. With the right kind of optics, I'm sure either of our families could be made to look villainous. I have a mutual friend who has known them longer than I...while she thinks we should be as tough as possible with them, she is clear that still cares for them and prays for them, too. I'm glad she is not turning this into a partisan hill where her friendship with them must die. That keeps me grounded. Sorry to bring my stuff up yet again...despite the stress of it the experience has been extremely educational, for lack of a better word. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 2 minutes ago, consiglieri said: And someone who can't even conceive of the possibility that he may be wrong is usually not worth having a discussion with. A series of drive-bys. And you complain to the moderators about being left on "limited."
Scott Lloyd Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) Computer glitch; duplicate post. Edited April 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) Computer glitch: triplicate post. Edited April 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
consiglieri Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: A series of drive-bys. And you complain to the moderators about being left on "limited." That was important enough to say three times, I agree. EDITED TO ADD IN RESPONSE TO SCOTT'S COMMENT BELOW: Quote When Church leaders act consistent with direction from the Holy Ghost, they will always be right, irrespective of what is written in any handbook. Can you not see that you are so in the tank for any church leader, even a SP you have never met, that you are going to justify any decision they make regardless of whether it violates procedure, policy, or even the plain dictates of moral decency? Edited April 19, 2016 by consiglieri
Scott Lloyd Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 12 minutes ago, consiglieri said: So even when Church leaders go against the handbook, they are right. I'm afraid you seem to be playing with a stacked deck, Scott. When Church leaders act consistent with direction from the Holy Ghost, they will always be right, irrespective of what is written in any handbook. 1
Jeanne Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: From Rush's mouth describing how sometimes they work and sometimes its hard: This was very interesting. Here is something my kids don't understand. I like them to do the washing and use the dryer before while I am not home. If it doesn't work out that way...even after they have finished, I will hear it in my head all night long. Sometimes it sounds like a motorcycle is going around and around..I am so awake!
Calm Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: The erring referred to here is what I despise so much about publicized conflict...the reactions can be more of confirmation bias than genuine concern and so much can get lost in the transfer of information. I've talked about our family's semi-public conflict with our renters. With the right kind of optics, I'm sure either of our families could be made to look villainous. I have a mutual friend who has known them longer than I...while she thinks we should be as tough as possible with them, she is clear that still cares for them and prays for them, too. I'm glad she is not turning this into a partisan hill where her friendship with them must die. That keeps me grounded. Sorry to bring my stuff up yet again...despite the stress of it the experience has been extremely educational, for lack of a better word. Personal experience can help create a greater sense of connection and understanding, imo. 1
Jeanne Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 You know, having interpreters and those who can help members who are disabled in any capacity would be a great Stake/Ward calling for those who have the ability and talent to participate.
mfbukowski Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 5 minutes ago, Jeanne said: You know, having interpreters and those who can help members who are disabled in any capacity would be a great Stake/Ward calling for those who have the ability and talent to participate. True, but usually talented people who are inclined to serve already have three other callings The problem is finding callings for those who won't serve and have few talents or skills.
Johnnie Cake Posted April 19, 2016 Author Posted April 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think you mean a caricature of itself. Perhaps you were the victim of an over-zealous auto-correct. That happens to me sometimes. Telling someone he should admit that he is wrong presupposes that he is wrong. If he doesn't believe that, why should he admit it? This is a corollary to what you said to me earlier, when you told me I was embarrassing myself. Your remark presupposed that what I have been saying warrants embarrassment, something I don't admit to. Nope I'm 100% responsible for the misspelling...and yes of course I meant caricature...thank you
stemelbow Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The only thing it suggests is that you lack imagination. And I'm not going to get drawn into the trap of making conjectures about reasons, as that's the sort of thing here that seems to set some people off. lol. Oh Scott. What would we do without you? I'm sincerely interested in all these possible reasons. Nothing? Ok.
Avatar4321 Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 39 minutes ago, consiglieri said: That was important enough to say three times, I agree. EDITED TO ADD IN RESPONSE TO SCOTT'S COMMENT BELOW: Can you not see that you are so in the tank for any church leader, even a SP you have never met, that you are going to justify any decision they make regardless of whether it violates procedure, policy, or even the plain dictates of moral decency? you're outraged that a latter day saint won't libel a leader every time you try to make a mountain out of a mole hill? 3
Jeanne Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: True, but usually talented people who are inclined to serve already have three other callings The problem is finding callings for those who won't serve and have few talents or skills. Isn't that the truth! I had to smile at that one! 1
Johnnie Cake Posted April 19, 2016 Author Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think you mean a caricature of itself. Perhaps you were the victim of an over-zealous auto-correct. That happens to me sometimes. Telling someone he should admit that he is wrong presupposes that he is wrong. If he doesn't believe that, why should he admit it? This is a corollary to what you said to me earlier, when you told me I was embarrassing myself. Your remark presupposed that what I have been saying warrants embarrassment, something I don't admit to. It takes intelligence to be able to recognize when you are wrong and a very special, humble person who values truth above ego to be able to admit it publically... dimwhitted, less intetellegent people either fail to or can't recognize when they're barking up the wrong tree and insist in refuseing to back down...despite being recognizably wrong to every one but themselves... Edited April 19, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
Robert F. Smith Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 12 hours ago, california boy said: I am really trying to understand your position on this. Can you explain why it would be bad to have an interpreter present even if he was totally faking being deaf? With something as serious as excommunication at stake, I would think the church would bend over backwards to make the person feel like he had been treated fairly. Isn't the end goal to have the person see goodness in the church and want to work their way back? It also seems that absolute clarity would be the goal. Explaining the down side of having someone there to help clarify would really help me understand your position. I suppose the confidentiality of the hearing is also an issue. The solutions I offer are by far the most compassionate and reasonable for both sides. Had Runnels been sincere, I think that he would have made reasonable demands. The same would have applied to his CES Letter, which cannot be characterized as sincere.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: That was important enough to say three times, I agree. I already indicated that was a computer glitch, which I tried to fix by eliminating the extra posts. Quote EDITED TO ADD IN RESPONSE TO SCOTT'S COMMENT BELOW: Can you not see that you are so in the tank for any church leader, even a SP you have never met, that you are going to justify any decision they make regardless of whether it violates procedure, policy, or even the plain dictates of moral decency? No, I'm going to refrain from pronouncing public judgments on him so long as I am not privy to the circumstances. That has been my consistent position. Edited April 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 21 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: you're outraged that a latter day saint won't libel a leader every time you try to make a mountain out of a mole hill? Thank you for stating more concisely what I tried to.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: It takes intelligence to be able to recognize when you are wrong and a very special, humble person who values truth above ego to be able to admit it publically... dimwhitted, less intetellegent people either fail to or can't recognize when they're barking up the wrong tree and insist in refuseing to back down...despite being recognizably wrong to every one but themselves... On the other hand, there is nothing noble or praiseworthy -- or particularly intelligent -- about admitting wrongdoing when one is not wrong. Edited April 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Recommended Posts