Planted: New Interview

[consiglieri]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is this one of those episodes you are charging people money to listen to, and if so, can you give us some context here for this alleged statement?

 

How does a guy who gets paid for writing LDS Church propaganda have room to criticize somebody for getting paid for their podcasts?

[salgare]

28 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

If I were a guessing man having spoken to him on a couple occasions both on and off the record, my guess is he expects the Women to be given something complimentary to Priesthood offices and responsibilities sometime soon.  Again only a guess.

Yes I got that as something he was very much behind and supported, I'm taking about at the last 10 minutes or so and he mentioned a possible failure of the church in several decades, that would never happen but was possible and it was something he would not, could not support.  It was in answer to your last question (all excellent questions and I too was impressed with all the answers).

My basic question is does Claremont generally, and he specifically support postmoderism in the changing Mormonism?  What is the one possible turn that he could not support?

Edited June 23, 2016 by salgare

[salgare]

29 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Imagine if the Church rather than be ambiguous about the race ban, said the ban itself was not from God, we got it wrong, we are sorry for an institutional error and we tried to repent and move on.....  wow  what power that would have.  We would collectively have to humble ourselves and acknowledge the gravity of what it means for generation after generation of prophets seers and revelators to misconstrue the mind and will of God.....

Yes, but look at the bump in trust for an evolving church, and as was brought out in the podcast an immediate need for a new understanding, definition, expectation of what is a Prophet.

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So I guess it boils down to whether or not one accepts the notion of guilt by association.

Some years ago, Illinois state government officials expressed regret for the atrocities that were committed against the Mormons in their state in the 1840s. I thought it a very magnanimous gesture.

But they did not apologize or take official responsibility or blame for what was done there. Nor should they have.

I've been to Mountain Meadows, I've seen the monument, and I'm sure I've read it, but I can't quote it verbatim off hand. What are you getting at?

It has nothing to do with guilt by association. I work in management for a bank. If I do or say something inappropriate or illegal in my role I am held personally responsible but the bank is also held responsible for my actions. Why? Because they have given me authority to represent them in certain ways. The church is the same. If they imbue authority upon certain individuals to act on behalf of the church, then the church is also responsible for those acts. It is not guilt by association. It is called responsibility.

RE Mountain Meadows: I just looked briefly for the wording of the monuments but couldn't find it so I can't back up the point I was going to make. So, never mind. Sorry. (See, apologizing is easy  )

 

[DBMormon]

37 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

How does a guy who gets paid for writing LDS Church propaganda have room to criticize somebody for getting paid for their podcasts?

great question in which he has likely created mental gymnastics to work through. What I love most is he wants to listen..... but he simply could never bring himself to pay someone like me for material even if really good material..... can't pick on him too hard.  I have almost entirely boycotted Deseret Book (except for G's) and I and Lord have collaborated on my paying tithing on surplus funds.

Edited June 23, 2016 by DBMormon

[HappyJackWagon]

18 hours ago, DBMormon said:

My favorite part of my discussion w/ Patrick was his insistence that we as a Church have to redefine prophet and need to do it quick.   I was knocked off my seat when he said that.  To be honest this is one of the best interviews I have been a part of.  Worth the listen!!!!

You definitely pulled some interesting perspectives out of him. I think he was warming up in the first half of the podcast but then he let loose. He always came back to why being faithful works for him and why he finds value in the church. I definitely respect that, but he also called for change. Good stuff.

[DBMormon]

19 minutes ago, salgare said:

Yes I got that as something he was very much behind and supported, I'm taking about at the last 10 minutes or so and he mentioned a possible failure of the church in several decades, that would never happen but was possible and it was something he would not, could not support.  It was in answer to your last question (all excellent questions and I too was impressed with all the answers).

My basic question is does Claremont generally, and he specifically support postmoderism in the changing Mormonism?  What is the one possible turn that he could not support?

On this issue I think he is not naive that there are certain leaders among the 12 who are uber orthodox and rigid in their interpretations.  I think he sees the reasonable risk that if that groups wins in influence then we are headed the wrong way.

[salgare]

12 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

On this issue I think he is not naive that there are certain leaders among the 12 who are uber orthodox and rigid in their interpretations.  I think he sees the reasonable risk that if that groups wins in influence then we are headed the wrong way.

Thanks Bill ... once again excellent perspective, excellent interview.  Godspeed.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

great question in which he has likely created mental gymnastics to work through. What I love most is he wants to listen..... but he simply could never bring himself to pay someone like me for material even if really good material..... can't pick on him too hard.  I have almost entirely boycotted Deseret Book (except for G's) and I and Lord have collaborated on my paying tithing on surplus funds.

Did you get the email I sent you a couple of weeks back? 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It has nothing to do with guilt by association. I work in management for a bank. If I do or say something inappropriate or illegal in my role I am held personally responsible but the bank is also held responsible for my actions. Why? Because they have given me authority to represent them in certain ways. The church is the same. If they imbue authority upon certain individuals to act on behalf of the church, then the church is also responsible for those acts. It is not guilt by association. It is called responsibility.

RE Mountain Meadows: I just looked briefly for the wording of the monuments but couldn't find it so I can't back up the point I was going to make. So, never mind. Sorry. (See, apologizing is easy  )

 

If you were to do or say something illegal, I would hold you criminally responsible but not the bank, especially if it were clear that you behaved in contravention of the bank's policies, directives and ethical standards. If the bank were inclined to support having your butt thrown in jail for your behavior, I would not hold it against them. 

But so long as you are advocating having entities apologize for things for which they aren't to blame, I will apologize to the rest of board for your wrong-headed promotion of guilt by association. 

Re: the wording on the monument. It doesn't have the Church apologizing or taking blame for the massacre, nor should it, any more than the current governor of Missouri should apologize for the Hawn's Mill massacre. 

Edited June 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, DBMormon said:

great question in which he has likely created mental gymnastics to work through. What I love most is he wants to listen..... but he simply could never bring himself to pay someone like me for material even if really good material..... can't pick on him too hard.  I have almost entirely boycotted Deseret Book (except for G's) and I and Lord have collaborated on my paying tithing on surplus funds.

So it's not voting with your pocketbook per se that you object to, it's just a matter of who is being targeted. 

[MiserereNobis]

St. Pope John Paul II apologized for many of the past faults of the Catholic Church.  Wikipedia even has a list of them!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II

It's really not that hard for the current leader of a church to apologize for past incorrect behavior of his predecessors.  In fact, I would argue that it is the moral thing to do.

Here's a quote from John Paul from that wikipedia page:

" An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded."

Here's a great article by the Catholic International Theological Commission on repenting for past institutional sins:

Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past

[mfbukowski]

On 6/22/2016 at 1:36 PM, DBMormon said:

My favorite part of my discussion w/ Patrick was his insistence that we as a Church have to redefine prophet and need to do it quick.   I was knocked off my seat when he said that.  To be honest this is one of the best interviews I have been a part of.  Worth the listen!!!!

I have always thought that a testimony of Christ is the spirit of prophesy.

We all should be prophets, but only one prophet is called to lead. That is the difference between the Restored Gospel and Mormon culture 

[DJBrown]

On 6/23/2016 at 8:37 AM, DBMormon said:

Imagine if the Church rather than be ambiguous about the race ban, said the ban itself was not from God, we got it wrong, we are sorry for an institutional error and we tried to repent and move on.....  wow  what power that would have.  We would collectively have to humble ourselves and acknowledge the gravity of what it means for generation after generation of prophets seers and revelators to misconstrue the mind and will of God.....

 

Chronocentrism:  

1. the egotism that one's own generation is posied on the very cusp of history.

2. the belief among people that their own time, their own era, is the norm against which all else must be judged.

3.  the belief that one's own times are paramount, that other periods pale in comparison.

This naive mindset can be observed in so many corners in today's society.

The church has not stated that the policy was a mistake.  It has stated that many of the explanations for the policy were mistaken.  Those are different things.  

Apologizing for past prophets and leaders would require a person living today to climb into the mind and heart of those past leaders and determine, somehow, that the inspiration they received was false.  

Mountain Meadows was not an institutional policy, doctrine, or action.  Individuals in the organization committed those crimes.  There is good evidence that Brigham Young sent instructions to leave the parties traveling through the area alone.  Without perfect knowledge of those events and people, how can we judge today enough to judge the church as a whole?  

Can you provide examples of policies or doctrines, officially sanctioned, that the church should apologize for or that they are in a position in to apologize for?  In my reading, they have not stated that the Priesthood policy was a mistake.   

[canard78]

On 22 June 2016 at 8:44 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

It presupposes that the church has made mistakes. If the church made mistakes the church is to blame for those mistakes.

Elder Uchtdorf stated that the church and leaders have made mistakes which is very reasonable. Otherwise one must suppose that the church has never made mistakes and even if they had, they wouldn't be responsible for them. That's rubbish.

 

Question: Assuming the church and leaders aren't perfect and have thus made mistakes, who besides the church, is at fault for mistakes the church has made?

 

On 22 June 2016 at 9:04 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Can you find the quote by President (not "Elder") Uchtdorf? Did he say specifically that the Church has made mistakes?

How can "the church" make mistakes?

The church is an inanimate organisational set of structures. 

That's like saying a bridge or an apple made mistakes.  

Surely the accurate statement would be that church leaders made mistakes and are imperfect. 

The church can be imperfect, because an object or entity can have imperfections, but it can't take an action, so can't make anything.

I know, semantics and all, but there you go. 

[canard78]

On 22 June 2016 at 9:58 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Is this one of those episodes you are charging people money to listen to, and if so, can you give us some context here for this alleged statement?

 

 

On 22 June 2016 at 10:28 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I know how to get there. I just wasn't willing to pay to hear it.

 

On 23 June 2016 at 3:47 PM, consiglieri said:

How does a guy who gets paid for writing LDS Church propaganda have room to criticize somebody for getting paid for their podcasts?

 

On 23 June 2016 at 4:23 PM, DBMormon said:

great question in which he has likely created mental gymnastics to work through. What I love most is he wants to listen..... but he simply could never bring himself to pay someone like me for material even if really good material..... can't pick on him too hard.  I have almost entirely boycotted Deseret Book (except for G's) and I and Lord have collaborated on my paying tithing on surplus funds.

Scott's a grown up who can hold his own, but I'm going to just chip in here and say that you two are taking swipes at a non-existent issue. 

Read carefully for comprehension next time. 

Scott didn't criticise Bill in any of the posts on this thread for the fact that he has premium episodes, he simply asked whether the current interview was behind a paywall or not. 

I have a lot of respect for what Bill's doing but have no interest in paying a subscription to his podcasts either. 

Given the Des News website is free it's also a pretty poor comparison. 

Anyway... as you were. 

[sam]

interesting