Robert F. Smith Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 2 hours ago, Ahab said: Yeah! So what is so sad about stereotypical cynicism if there must needs be some of it? Maybe we should be glad to be seeing some stereotypical cynicism because otherwise we wouldn't be seeing any opposition which we must needs have in all things. ........................................... Yeh. Right on, Ahab. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Having a POV doesn't automatically justify her just as you saying she's wrong doesn't automatically make it so. You haven't justified your claim that the points she made in the op-ed are ignorant of history, theology, or language. If you propose that we go back over about the last 5 years of threads on this board, you are out of your mind. All of that has been discussed to death. Have you learned nothing? If you are not perceptive enough to see the gargantuan holes in her arguments, then there is no help for you. She isn't even a participant on this board, and you want her to the be the new kid on the block? However, you get her on here to discuss these matters and I will willingly take her by the hand and lead her through the elementary facts of Mormon history and theology. 4
rodheadlee Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 11 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Not what I said. Utah is about 1.6% black. With the highest concentrations in large metropolitan area's. We don't segregate principally by race. We do it by socioeconomic factors that include race. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Utah I'm sorry but my ward is red and yellow, black and white and the economics run from millionares to poor as a little church mouse. 2
Hamba Tuhan Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, rodheadlee said: I'm sorry but my ward is red and yellow, black and white and the economics run from millionares to poor as a little church mouse. That sounds just like my ward. We have members whose ethnic origins literally include every continent but Antarctica plus a variety of island groups. First languages include at least the following: Burmese, Cebuano, Dinka, Dutch, English, Fijian, German, Indonesian, Korean, Krio, Maori, Portuguese, Russian, Samoan, Spanish, Tagalog, Thai, Tongan, Twi, and Yoruba ... and probably several I've forgot to list. Our stake patriarch and his wife regularly take aeroplanes to attend operas; a different couple in the ward live in a room in a boarding house with eight other people. Most people exist somewhere in between ... all in an area about 7 kilometres by 6 kilometres. And we're one big happy family! (By the way, our opera fans regularly have our boarding-house dwellers 'round for dinner or FHE, and the younger couple affectionately call the older ones 'mum' and 'dad'.) Edited May 5, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan 1
Tacenda Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: That sounds just like my ward. We have members whose ethnic origins literally include every continent but Antarctica plus a variety of island groups. First languages include at least the following: Burmese, Cebuano, Dinka, Dutch, English, Fijian, German, Indonesian, Korean, Krio, Maori, Russian, Samoan, Spanish, Tagalog, Thai, Tongan, Twi, and Yoruba ... and probably several I've forgot to list. Our stake patriarch and his wife regularly take aeroplanes to attend operas; a different couple in the ward live in a room in a boarding house with eight other people. Most people exist somewhere in between ... all in an area about 7 kilometres by 6 kilometres. And we're one big happy family! (By the way, our opera fans regularly have our boarding-house dwellers 'round for dinner or FHE, and the younger couple affectionately call the older ones 'mum' and 'dad'.) I love your ward!
halconero Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: That sounds just like my ward. We have members whose ethnic origins literally include every continent but Antarctica plus a variety of island groups. First languages include at least the following: Burmese, Cebuano, Dinka, Dutch, English, Fijian, German, Indonesian, Korean, Krio, Maori, Russian, Samoan, Spanish, Tagalog, Thai, Tongan, Twi, and Yoruba ... and probably several I've forgot to list. Our stake patriarch and his wife regularly take aeroplanes to attend operas; a different couple in the ward live in a room in a boarding house with eight other people. Most people exist somewhere in between ... all in an area about 7 kilometres by 6 kilometres. And we're one big happy family! (By the way, our opera fans regularly have our boarding-house dwellers 'round for dinner or FHE, and the younger couple affectionately call the older ones 'mum' and 'dad'.) Reminds me of our stake. It was just created in December of last year, and this was our first stake conference. They read off the stake statistical report and we have 74 countries of origin for our members. 2
thesometimesaint Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 10 hours ago, rodheadlee said: I'm sorry but my ward is red and yellow, black and white and the economics run from millionares to poor as a little church mouse. Good for your Ward.
rockpond Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: If you propose that we go back over about the last 5 years of threads on this board, you are out of your mind. All of that has been discussed to death. Have you learned nothing? If you are not perceptive enough to see the gargantuan holes in her arguments, then there is no help for you. She isn't even a participant on this board, and you want her to the be the new kid on the block? However, you get her on here to discuss these matters and I will willingly take her by the hand and lead her through the elementary facts of Mormon history and theology. Let's start with her points #1 and #2. Do you deny that church leaders have taught that the prophet can not lead us astray, that when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done and the debate is over, the 14 fundamentals of following the prophet, and that primary children sing "follow the prophet, he knows the way"?
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: Let's start with her points #1 and #2. Do you deny that church leaders have taught that the prophet can not lead us astray, that when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done and the debate is over, the 14 fundamentals of following the prophet, and that primary children sing "follow the prophet, he knows the way"? I deny the bit about "the thinking has been done." That was an erroneous statement made in a ward teachers message way back in, I think, the 1940s that was almost immediately disavowed by the president of the Church at the time. People like her (and now you, apparently) are either unaware of or choose to ignore that fact. Edited May 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
rockpond Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I deny the bit about "the thinking has been done." That was an erroneous statement made in a ward teachers message way back in, I think, the 1940s that was almost immediately disavowed by the president of the Church at the time. People like her (and now you, apparently) are either unaware of or choose to ignore that fact. I don't, for a second, think that "the thinking has been done" is doctrinal. But it was taught. And it has been repeated since then. Further, similar ideas have been taught since then... you know, the rest of the ones you ignored in your response above. I don't see anyone being able to counter the points that she made in #1 and #2... they are just trying to dismiss her without engaging at all.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 1 minute ago, rockpond said: I don't, for a second, think that "the thinking has been done" is doctrinal. But it was taught. And it has been repeated since then. Further, similar ideas have been taught since then... you know, the rest of the ones you ignored in your response above. I don't see anyone being able to counter the points that she made in #1 and #2... they are just trying to dismiss her without engaging at all. It has been repeated by anti-Mormons and others -- including you just now -- without providing the crucial information that it was disavowed at the time by the Church president. That is inexcusable, rockpond. You should know better. 1
thesometimesaint Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: I don't, for a second, think that "the thinking has been done" is doctrinal. But it was taught. And it has been repeated since then. Further, similar ideas have been taught since then... you know, the rest of the ones you ignored in your response above. I don't see anyone being able to counter the points that she made in #1 and #2... they are just trying to dismiss her without engaging at all. SEE http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/when-the-prophet-speaks-is-the-thinking-done
rockpond Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It has been repeated by anti-Mormons and others -- including you just now -- without providing the crucial information that it was disavowed at the time by the Church president. That is inexcusable, rockpond. You should know better. No, Scott, it is inexcusable to act as if Viegas-Haws is making up church teachings and culture out of thin air when she is not. You also didn't deny any of the other principles on my list which are, essentially, the same idea. 2
Jeanne Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It has been repeated by anti-Mormons and others -- including you just now -- without providing the crucial information that it was disavowed at the time by the Church president. That is inexcusable, rockpond. You should know better. But I even used it in one of my seminary devotionals..no one told me this was incorrect. Why hasn't this been disavowed if it was just a ward thing in the 1940's?? 2
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: No, Scott, it is inexcusable to act as if Viegas-Haws is making up church teachings and culture out of thin air when she is not. You also didn't deny any of the other principles on my list which are, essentially, the same idea. I'm choosing to focus on this one thing for the moment rather than respond to your entire scatter-gun approach. And you appear to be trying to deflect the conversation away from that one thing. I repeat that it is inexcusable to use the errant ward teacher's message as a weapon to attack the Church when it was disavowed at the time by the president of the Church. Why can't you acknowledge that? It won't kill you. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: SEE http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/when-the-prophet-speaks-is-the-thinking-done Thank you for providing this documentation. I commend it to rockpond -- and to everyone else.
rockpond Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: SEE http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/when-the-prophet-speaks-is-the-thinking-done Yes, I am familiar with President Smith's correction to Dr. Cope. Was it publicly disavowed to the body of the church? A retraction printed in the following Improvement Era? Or, did we continue to teach the same false doctrine in other ways: Marion G. Romney in 1960 Gen Con "even if it is wrong", N. Eldon Tanner in the Ensign in 1969 "debate is over", The 14 Fundamentals in the 80's and then repeated in Gen Con a few years back. As I said, I don't consider these statements to be true or correct but let's stop pretending that Viegas-Haws is just clueless... she is repeating what she was taught as a lifelong church member. 4
jkwilliams Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 3 minutes ago, Jeanne said: But I even used it in one of my seminary devotionals..no one told me this was incorrect. Why hasn't this been disavowed if it was just a ward thing in the 1940's?? I've certainly heard that repeated many times in my lifetime. Here's a similar statement from N. Eldon Tanner: Quote The Debate Is Over Recently, at the Churchwide fireside meeting held for the women of the Church, Young Women President Elaine Cannon made the following statement: “When the Prophet speaks, … the debate is over” (Ensign, Nov. 1978, p. 108). I was impressed by that simple statement, which carries such deep spiritual meaning for all of us. Wherever I go, my message to the people is: Follow the prophet. Why else has the Lord placed prophets on the earth throughout the dispensations of time? In his infinite wisdom, and as part of the plan of life and salvation for his children, God has given us the blueprint to follow, the leadership to direct us and keep us on course, and the Church organization to help us lay the foundation and develop the skills, or make the preparation necessary, to lead us back to our eternal home. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/08/the-debate-is-over?lang=eng So, no, you're not out in left field. I do think most church members recognize that blind, unthinking obedience is not in harmony with the gospel. 3
rockpond Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm choosing to focus on this one thing for the moment rather than respond to your entire scatter-gun approach. And you appear to be trying to deflect the conversation away from that one thing. I repeat that it is inexcusable to use the errant ward teacher's message as a weapon to attack the Church when it was disavowed at the time by the president of the Church. Why can't you acknowledge that? It won't kill you. No, you are trying to redirect the conversation because Viegas-Haws is correct with her first two points and you'd rather not admit that. Where was it disavowed to the body of the church? CFR. I acknowledged that it was disavowed in a letter to Dr. Cope by the Prophet. But the same idea has continued to be taught throughout the decades.
rockpond Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Thank you for providing this documentation. I commend it to rockpond -- and to everyone else. I had already read it before TSS posted it.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yes, I am familiar with President Smith's correction to Dr. Cope. Then shame on you for failing to mention it. I daresay you would be quick to pillory the Church for leaving out such a crucial bit of information.
smac97 Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 On 5/5/2016 at 9:03 AM, rockpond said: I don't, for a second, think that "the thinking has been done" is doctrinal. But it was taught. And it has been repeated since then. CFR. When was it taught? By whom? Where? This phrase appears zero times on the LDS.org website. If all you've got is anecdotal "I heard it from my bishop 15 years ago"-type "evidence," then say so. For the record, I have never heard this phrase or concept taught in the Church. Ever. The only people whom I have seen propagate it are critics, dissidents, and enemies of the Church. Quote Further, similar ideas have been taught since then... you know, the rest of the ones you ignored in your response above. CFR #2. What "similar ideas?" Chapter and verse, please. Thanks, -Smac 2
Jeanne Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: Then shame on you for failing to mention it. I daresay you would be quick to pillory the Church for leaving out such a crucial bit of information. You blame Rockpond? Holy Cow..it would only be assumed that everyone has read this! Gees..told to live it.
rockpond Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: Then shame on you for failing to mention it. I daresay you would be quick to pillory the Church for leaving out such a crucial bit of information. Give me a break, Scott. CFR where the statement was disavowed to the body of the church. I don't think it ever was because the same idea continued to be taught.
thesometimesaint Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yes, I am familiar with President Smith's correction to Dr. Cope. Was it publicly disavowed to the body of the church? A retraction printed in the following Improvement Era? Or, did we continue to teach the same false doctrine in other ways: Marion G. Romney in 1960 Gen Con "even if it is wrong", N. Eldon Tanner in the Ensign in 1969 "debate is over", The 14 Fundamentals in the 80's and then repeated in Gen Con a few years back. As I said, I don't consider these statements to be true or correct but let's stop pretending that Viegas-Haws is just clueless... she is repeating what she was taught as a lifelong church member. As a general rule the LDS don't go around correcting every false idea put forth by its leaders. If she were taught that as a lifelong church member, it appears she hasn't read this. SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine Edited May 5, 2016 by thesometimesaint
Recommended Posts