Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He gave a link to what he was quoting. I could easily see what he was doing when I clicked on the link.

 

I find it confusing as I assume quotes actually mean quotes and appreciate when people resist the temptation to play with others' words.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

He's not supposed to put things in quotes if it is not an actual quote.  

I actually remember Calm posting recently that doing this is against board rules.

The first sentence is fine as it is the actual quote.   The other sentences he added himself.

The rules appear to be specifically members' quotes, but it might be expanded by mods perhaps if this happened more than once or twice.  I don't know if Nemesis the Rule Giver finds such as annoying.  Iirc, the rule was created when people were making a habit of retaliation by altering posts in the quotes, so that it was happening multiple times in a thread (as in "fixed it for you" comments).  Not quite the same thing....add-on:  unless I misunderstood and ALarson's comments were altered.

"• Altering members quotes on the board"

Edited September 19, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I find it confusing as I assume quotes actually mean quotes and appreciate when people resist the temptation to play with others' words.

I agree with you in principle, but in this instance, his point was clear to me once I saw the link, though I would have expressed it differently. 

I would have said it this way: Curious that "Mormon Newsroom" is intended to communicate the position of the Church to journalists and opinion leaders, but for some reason you think Church members are obliged to get it from  general conference. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Sure, but not the point.

In 1949 the First Presidency issued a definitive official statement on behalf of the Church that the negro ban started in premortality.
The Church today disavows that statement.

Apparently, a united official statement is just as apt to be wrong and any other.

I don't think it is "just as apt to be wrong", but I still believe it can be wrong.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with you in principle, but in this instance, his point was clear to me once I saw the link, though I would have expressed it differently. 

Just because something is clearly expressed doesn't mean it is appropriate though.

One of us could report it and see what the mods think.  I assumed BG would change it if asked, but perhaps not.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So it's at the murmuring stage, then, and hasn't quite reached the overt rebellion stage.

Still time to step in and make a timely change.

 

Or close friends could just be expressing concerns to close friends.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just because something is clearly expressed doesn't mean it is appropriate though.

One of us could report it and see what the mods think.  I assumed BG would change it if asked, but perhaps not.

His point is solid, even if not elegantly expressed. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Please read the letters sent by the First Presidency to local leaders with instructions to read them to all members. There is nothing more official or authoritative than this short of canonization. It's not often the First Presidency resorts to this to communicate something that is important to them. I heard them read in the chapel they had the same impact as if they had been read at Conference. They include these words:

 

I agree such are official and should be taken the same way as spoken from the mouth.

I can also see why hearing it rather than reading it is emotionally more satisfying.  If a spouse only wrote love letters, but never said "I love you" out loud, the other would likely feel they were missing a deep connection.  I can therefore understand why some need to hear it.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

His point is solid, even if not elegantly expressed. 

Again not the point.

A dagger to the heart is a solid, clear expression of disagreement, but not exactly something one should encourage.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or close friends could just be expressing concerns to close friends.

I stand by my position that leaders of local Church units ought to be in harmony with the position of the Church and its general leadership. If they cannot, others should be found to fill the callings. For the sake of those they are called to lead and preside over, if no one else.

Church leadership callings are a privilege, not an entitlement. 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Again not the point.

A dagger to the heart is a solid, clear expression of disagreement, but not exactly something one should encourage.

This is not a dagger to the heart. It's a cogent point that it makes no sense to regard "Mormon Newsroom" as expressing the position of the Church to one group but not another. 

And no, I won't be reporting Bernard Gui. You may do what you will. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Well it feels like the brethren speak on topics they are inspired to talk to members about or topics they believe members need to hear.  Since President Monson has not ever spoken about SSM or gay issues, maybe that tells us he doesn't want to or feels it's not that important or wasn't inspired to speak on it.  Maybe others in the twelve feel more strongly about it and wanted the policy enforced.  I doubt though the prophet would go along with it if he strongly disagreed but it might not have been as pressing for him as for others.  Who knows what went on with it behind the scenes.

He may feel a different style of speaking works better and has been aware that others would speak who he believed did what was needed and that he doesn't want to add to it to avoid it feeling like a dogpile to some.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree such are official and should be taken the same way as spoken from the mouth.

I can also see why hearing it rather than reading it is emotionally more satisfying.  If a spouse only wrote love letters, but never said "I love you" out loud, the other would likely feel they were missing a deep connection.  I can therefore understand why some need to hear it.

But there is no good reason, if it is signed by a person, not to regard it as coming from that person, unless you believe fraud is afoot. 

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If that happens, they will each and every one be out of harmony with the revealed word of God in that respect and, worst-case scenario, find themselves on the outside of the Church, either by their own volition or by disciplinary council.

The Church of Jesus Christ has never been governed by popular vote, and it won't be happening on this issue.

My "safety-in-numbers" expression pertains to ordained servants of God, not ark steadiers and fautfinders.

 

I can see you point in theory.  But the reality is that most of the changes in doctrine/policy have happened  because of pressure from outside and within the church.  It is not beyond reason that within a few years  the majority of members will be pushing for a change in the current policy.  We see this happening now.  If it grows to a majority status, then I believe the church leadership would seriously review the policy.

Edited September 19, 2017 by sunstoned

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I can see you point in theory.  But the reality is that most of the changes in doctrine/policy have happened  because of pressure from outside and within the church.  It is not beyond reason that within a few years  the majority of members will be pushing for a change in the current policy.  We see this happening now.  If it grows to a majority status, then I believe the church leadership would seriously review the policy.

Time will tell, I suppose. 

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

You are hilarious, Scott...so dramatic.  You do know that members of the church do not have to agree with every policy and everything their leaders state, don't you?   

Well, since the Stake President is in full agreement, I doubt that will happen anytime soon.   I think there are many in leadership positions who question this new policy, Scott.   Few will seek out couples in a SSM to excommunicate them (I hope none will, but it may have happened).  If a couple is minding their own business and not speaking out against the church, why seek them out for church discipline?

My cousin is a Bishop in Montana. I spoke with in depth on the subject of the current policy at a family reunion we held this summer.  He is not supportive of denying children membership because of their parents marriage status,  nor will hold court on anyone who is legality married.  He claims his counselors are in agreement on this.  He told me that there is a gay couple currently attending his ward, and they have been embraced by the ward members.

[JLHPROF]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think it is "just as apt to be wrong", but I still believe it can be wrong.

Scott apparently disagrees with you.
According to him if the FP & Qof12 agree on something, that's as good as if God said it personally.

[Calm]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Scott apparently disagrees with you.
According to him if the FP & Qof12 agree on something, that's as good as if God said it personally.

I don't think that is particularly shocking to either Scott or myself.  We often disagree.

[thatjimguy]

On 9/15/2017 at 10:46 AM, hope_for_things said:

Sounds like more evidence of Bednar's relationship with his wife, which I lost a lot of respect for after watching that devotional video a couple years back.  I'm not a fan of Bednar at all, and feel sorry for his wife, and hope he never makes the presidency.  

 

 

You don't have to reply here (just PM me) for reasons of not hikacking the thread, but what are your beefs with Eldar Bednar?

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Scott apparently disagrees with you.
According to him if the FP & Qof12 agree on something, that's as good as if God said it personally.

I just find it extremely difficult to conceive that a group of divinely appointed people, earnestly and unitedly seeking to know the will of  God, would be uniformly and unanimously wrong on something. I think it far more likely that obstinate fault finders on the outside would be the ones who are wrong. 

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Avatar, maybe you're not understanding my point.  Church leaders don't = God.  Conference addresses don't = God.  

Then who exactly is speaking for God? because He doesn't approve in the scriptures. He hasn't revealed this new doctrine to His Apostles and Prophets. And He has stated that He will do no thing unless He reveals it to His servants the Prophets.

Has someone else claimed to be a prophet receiving this revelation?

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Interesting how this thread has evolved from showing respect by allowing GAs to stand before everyone else to whether LDS prophets are infallible...this board is schizophrenic 

Is anyone claiming infallibility?

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

This has nothing to do with looks or sounds.  President Monson has had so many times to speak to us.  He chooses what he speaks on.  He hasn't spoken to us about SSM.  I think that tells the members something.  Hearing him speak is so different than a press release.  

And most recently he spoke on reading the Book of Mormon and being kind.

Both of which are far more important than gay marriage. Which its utterly frustrating that it's all some people want to discuss as though bringing it up again and again will make it any less sinful.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

I don't know to be honest.  He's the prophet and speaks to the members the messages from God.  If you had a message for your children and had them wanting to hear you personally speak to them, would you let the newsroom do that for you or would you lovingly speak directly to them person to person?

He has had many chances to do that and hasn't so far.  A child would feel that the parent didn't want to talk about it after that.  Those are feelings I have here as I've longed to hear from him about this.  Some others are ok with other types of communication I guess, but he could have spoken to us.  He had many opportunities when we were there and intently listening.

Once again, we're not talking about a newsroom. We are talking about letters he sent to us. Our bishops read them to us person to person. We talked about them and asked questions. Were you present when your bishop read them? We read letters from prophets and messages from the Lord himself in the scriptures all the time. We don't get videos of them..

Have you observed his frailty in the past few years? Isn't this thread about not elevating General Authorities to god-like levels of adulation? Other authorities have addressed the Church about this issue. They are also Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. They speak with a united authority and compassion. 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

Ok, I didn't see that.  Can you link to where you wrote any quotes by president Monson from a public talk he gave on SSM to the members at General conference or at another church gathering?  When was this?

(Or just post a link to his talk if that is easier and I can read it myself.  Thanks Bernard Gui.  I can tell you care and want to help.). I'm going to go back into the thread too.

I'm not aware of any specific public talk he has given on same-sex marriage, but most General Authorities have not publicly spoken about it. In fact, he doesn't say a lot about families and marriage in general. I can't think of any Presidents who addressed ssm because it has become an issue only recently. He has spoken to the entire Church through a series of extraordinary letters. That's sufficient IMO.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Bernard Gui