My (Ex) Stake President is a Woman

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Scott

 

Don't you find it at all a bit convenient for McConkie to say....well just forget about it..... I made sweeping statements with the authority of an apostle but I really did not know what the heck I was talking about so just ignore it all....

 

It might be helpful to the credibility of your argument if you found the actual quote by Elder McConkie rather than badly paraphrasing words into his mouth.

[Robert F. Smith]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would think they seek revelation all along during the deliberative process, from start to finish, hoping that God would guide their deliberations even as they do the discussing and fact-finding among themselves.

That's what I would do, at any rate.

Bear in mind that the proverbial "stupor of thought" (interpreted as a negative response) is as much an element of revelation as is the "burning in the bosom."

And perhaps a better term than "human institution" is worldly institution. I would not so characterize the Church of Jesus Christ.

I would hope that the brethren seek (from long experience) inspiration of the Holy Spirit in all they do, and that they are open to unsought promptings.  They are still very human despite all that.  And there is no reason why the rules of organizational behavior cannot be applied to them.  If they are a cut above the rest, so much the better.

As to the negative connotations carried by "worldly," we often imagine that the Machiavellian, crass, mercenary, vicious, and cynical behavior associated with typical "worldly"  institutions are just not ever part of the way the First Presidency and Twelve conduct their business.  Roman Catholics hope that such base intrigues and infighting do not take place within the curia at the Vatican, while Anglicans no doubt hope in vain that their faith has not been ravaged by infighting over ordination of women and homosexuals.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I would hope that the brethren seek (from long experience) inspiration of the Holy Spirit in all they do, and that they are open to unsought promptings.  They are still very human despite all that.  And there is no reason why the rules of organizational behavior cannot be applied to them.  If they are a cut above the rest, so much the better.

As to the negative connotations carried by "worldly," we often imagine that the Machiavellian, crass, mercenary, vicious, and cynical behavior associated with typical "worldly"  institutions are just not ever part of the way the First Presidency and Twelve conduct their business.  Roman Catholics hope that such base intrigues and infighting do not take place within the curia at the Vatican, while Anglicans no doubt hope in vain that their faith has not been ravaged by infighting over ordination of women and homosexuals.

Be that as it may, I have greater expectation that my hope will be rewarded as pertaining to the First Presidency and Twelve than for any other institution on earth, religious or secular.

Furthermore, I have greater reason to trust them than I do those who criticize them.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It might be helpful to the credibility of your argument if you found the actual quote by Elder McConkie rather than badly paraphrasing words into his mouth.

It would be the decent thing to do, but I doubt it would strengthen his argument.

[Bernard Gui]

On 7/19/2017 at 0:22 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

I've sat at this man's feet, have counseled with him, have received counsel from him.  What of that?

Well, this of that. I hesitate making celebrities, heroes, or icons of our brothers and sisters in leadership positions. Having the utmost respect for their office and calling, having confidence in them and sustaining them, assuming their good will and not speaking ill of them....absolutely. But pedestals are precarious places on which to perch or be put.

And it's why I wouldn't want anyone to sit at my feet. (Absolutely no offense intended). My feet are pretty stinky. There is One on whom we can rely.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[USU78]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Weren't they sealed as sons to fathers in those instances?

 

That's correct.

But my great, great granddad sure had different expectations from that sealing than did Brigham

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm with ksfisher on this. I'm confident there is a good deal more seeking and receiving of revelation in administering the Church than there is in running a typical corporation. I don't believe it's true that they ask for it "only when necessary." From what I know of them, they seek it constantly.

In fact, that might be what sets them apart from ordinary men: not being infallible but being humble enough to seek and receive inspiration from God pretty much constantly.

Fine, as long as they work it out in their own minds first (D&C 9:7-8).  One of the reasons why such highly qualified men have been called to such lead the Church is because the Lord wants their knowledge and experience.  That does not obviate the need to seek inspiration, but it certainly informs it and makes it more valuable to the Lord.

The same applies to the silly notion that any prophet seer & revelator should be able on demand to translate any language.  The economy of God is that humans should exercise their own knowledge and abilities before asking God.  Thus, the Church employs translators who know the languages.  Where a language is unknown, of course, a seer may need to be called upon to do the job.  That is the economy of God.

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Posted this in another thread but it seems more appropriate here

 

   5 hours ago,  Johnnie Cake said: 

Evidently being transgender = apostasy now.  A new Mormon stories podcast has just been release. The interview is with a former 20 year church architect who oversaw temple construction and design. She also severed as a bishop and stake president in Tooele. 

She continued to work at the COB with the full blessing of church authorities for 4 years after disclosing that she only projected a man while at work and resumed her gender away from the COB both in public and at home. 

Now she's been excommunicated 

this is a very sad but spirituality uplifting interview with Laurie Lee. She is very respectful towards her former stake councilor and the church who moved forward with her church court despite her only sin was self identifing as a female. She remains in her 34 year committed marriage to her wife

i recommend this to members of this board because she remains andlbeliever is respectful to the church and the GAs she worked closely with. I believe this is an important interview 

 

if if you want to understand this women and her gender listen to her podcast interview...it was very tender and moving. I can't understand why there wasn't more love and compassion extended to her by her stake leaders...very sad 

Well this is what happens when humans think that they have God telling them what is right and wrong and anything else that conflicts with that is the so called "natural man" which is allegedly "an enemy to God."  Of course such statements are manipulative and designed to control humans and give the religious authority power and control over them. 

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It would be the decent thing to do, but I doubt it would strengthen his argument.

Why quote when a burlesque will serve?

[Teancum]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's just it: They have not been wrong all that often, not when acting as a body.

They have been disagreed with a great deal. But that doesn't make them wrong any more than it makes those who disagree with them right.

 

 

Well my perspective is that they have been awfully wrong on a lot of things even when acting as a body.  But I also admit I could be wrong.  Can you admit that?  Can they? 

[Kenngo1969]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well my perspective is that they have been awfully wrong on a lot of things even when acting as a body.  But I also admit I could be wrong.  Can you admit that?  Can they? 

Again, those are fascinating subjects ... for another thread.  Please do not derail this one any further.

[Teancum]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't think he claimed to have made them with the authority of an apostle.

Mormon Doctrine, for example, was written before he was an apostle.

 

And edited afterwards.  And sold and sold and sold with no church leader repudiating it.  Oh I know there is the caveat that "this is just my opinion."  But when from the pulpit we here over and over and over "Follow the Brethren" and you won't be led astray.  Also the oft told story about even if we follow the prophet in error we are blessed for it but don't worry...God won't let that happen.  This sets up an expectation that what these leaders say, even in their own books mean something. And if there ever was an LDS apostle who thought he had the authority to lay out the doctrine it was Elder McConkie.  So no he does not get to back peddle so easily.

[Teancum]

22 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Apostolic/Prophetic fallibility is a fascinating subject ... for another thread.  You're entitled to your opinions on that and on any other subject, but please do not derail this one any further. 

Scott brought it into the discussion so that makes my response valid.  This issue is also in the realm of whether Church leaders really speak for God or not since they set the policy based on a teaching that God is directing them.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Teancum

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

With the death of the Church president, there would no longer be 15.

But in any event, I think the title is still Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Yeah, its kind of like the Big 12 in NCAA football, it has 10 members but its still called the Big 12.  

[Teancum]

20 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It might be helpful to the credibility of your argument if you found the actual quote by Elder McConkie rather than badly paraphrasing words into his mouth.

It was in Scott's post that I responded to.  But here you are:

 

“Forget everything I have said, or what … Brigham Young … or whomsoever has said … that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.” [Bruce R. McConkie, “New Revelation on Priesthood,” in Priesthood, no editor given, but presumably edited by McConkie (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 126-137, esp. 126-127.]

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Again, those are fascinating subjects ... for another thread.  Please do not derail this one any further.

Again it is relevant to the thread. 

 

But I will bow out for now.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Be that as it may, I have greater expectation that my hope will be rewarded as pertaining to the First Presidency and Twelve than for any other institution on earth, religious or secular.

Furthermore, I have greater reason to trust them than I do those who criticize them.

All well and good, Scott.  At the same time,  however, bear in mind that those critics often come from the ranks of LDS members who were led down the garden path of high expectations -- expectations that the Brethren are operationally infallible, even if not perfectly infallible.  In their naivete, they have formulated a kind of myth of near perfect behavior of the Brethren.  Such a notion cannot abide Elder McConkie saying in 1978 that one should forget all he had said on a particular issue, nor Pres Uchtdorf's frank declaration that mistakes have been made.

This also applies to an area authority emeritus such as Hans Mattsson apostatizing in 2013 because he had been so poorly informed of LDS history and doctrine.  Even non-Mormons were laughing at his naivete and ignorance.  At some stage in our lives, any of us might be just as uninformed and ignorant.  What is likely to prevent apostasy is the realization early on that even people in high places make mistakes and are often no better morally than we are.  We need to have compassion for one another, and we need to be more realistic in our expectations.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hi-jacking an existing church is more lucrative than starting your own. Got it.

2 Nephi 26:29.

 

 

They say that history is written by the victors.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Correct, but we still believe that revelation comes from God through those who had been called to administer the particular stewardship to which that revelation pertains.  We, as children of God, are invited to council with Him.  He entrusts to us the leadership of His church on this earth.  Nevertheless, we still acknowledge Him as the ultimate source of power, authority, and revelation.

Perhaps you can boil this down to what is the definition of a religion, an institution that has divine guidance.  

[Kenngo1969]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, this of that. I hesitate making celebrities, heroes, or icons of our brothers and sisters in leadership positions. Having the utmost respect for their office and calling, having confidence in them and sustaining them, assuming their good will and not speaking ill of them....absolutely. But pedestals are precarious places on which to perch or be put.

And it's why I wouldn't want anyone to sit at my feet. (Absolutely no offense intended). My feet are pretty stinky. There is One on whom we can rely.

Era un metaforo, solo!  If it needs to be said, I'm in total agreement with you that we honor the office, not the man or woman who holds it.

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All well and good, Scott.  At the same time,  however, bear in mind that those critics often come from the ranks of LDS members who were led down the garden path of high expectations -- expectations that the Brethren are operationally infallible, even if not perfectly infallible.  In their naivete, they have formulated a kind of myth of near perfect behavior of the Brethren.  Such a notion cannot abide Elder McConkie saying in 1978 that one should forget all he had said on a particular issue, nor Pres Uchtdorf's frank declaration that mistakes have been made.

This also applies to an area authority emeritus such as Hans Mattsson apostatizing in 2013 because he had been so poorly informed of LDS history and doctrine.  Even non-Mormons were laughing at his naivete and ignorance.  At some stage in our lives, any of us might be just as uninformed and ignorant.  What is likely to prevent apostasy is the realization early on that even people in high places make mistakes and are often no better morally than we are.  We need to have compassion for one another, and we need to be more realistic in our expectations.

Great comments Robert, thanks.  

One other thing we ought to do as a community, we ought to respect those that choose to separate themselves from the church for whatever reasons they choose to, and rather than call them apostates, we ought to honor their journey as a respected path in their life.  For me, this falls into in the teachings of Jesus of how we should love our enemies and do good those that harm us (harm the community through separating) by trying to understand the reasons for their separation better, but also respecting their choice (agency is our key value) and not demonizing or disrespecting them.  

I'm not accusing saying you Robert, but I'm critiquing the kind of tribalism that I see as part of our tradition and part of our current teachings (Gospel Doctrine lesson 24 this year).  We can do better.

 

[ksfisher]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Perhaps you can boil this down to what is the definition of a religion, an institution that has divine guidance.  

I'm not sure if you're asking a question here or making a statement.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

I'm not sure if you're asking a question here or making a statement.

Just saying that your comment about the brethren being guided by God in their decision making is basically a definition for a religion.  An institution guided by the divine.  The specific doctrines of how that happens vary quite a bit across the different traditions, but the central idea is the same.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

How about the men who were sealed to Brigham Young when he was a Prophet (that were not related to him as his sons or his father)?

Men to men sealings is a big red herring. No man was sealed to Brigham Young alone, but were always sealed to Brigham and one of his wives as an adopted son (hence the law of adoption) - the same as children are sealed to their parents today. 

[Duncan]

only in Utah where they have like 5 million members would they ex someone for this!!!!!!! Must be nice, a former Stake President, RM, worked for the Temple Dept. here we would latch onto them so fast and so hard, we need this!!!!!!!!!!! I don't care if you wear a dress! we need someone to bring bread on sunday and teach sunday school!