Scott Lloyd Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 8 minutes ago, ALarson said: Valid? Yes (although the letter appeared to be a group effort....I still believe that he agreed with it if he put his name on it.) As effective? No....not IMO. Would you rather have a group letter from your wife (with a few of her friends names signed too) read to you (and to the friend's husbands at the same time) by someone else, or have her there in person expressing her love to you face to face? Letters are meaningful, of course....but nothing takes the place of person to person communication where you can see, experience and feel their emotions as you watch their face as they express their love to you. I know of no member of the church who would rather have a group letter read to them from President Monson if they could have a personal, face to face with him or hear him actually express his feelings to them. I'm not asking about personal preference here. I'm asking whether you believe a statement of doctrine, policy, whatever is less authentic because the Church president delivers it in written form with his signature than it is if he personally speaks it. If less authentic, why? You concede that it is valid, but I'm not sure what you mean by that, because you go on to make these qualifiers about apparent "group effort" and questionable analogies about letters from one's wife and what not.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 8 minutes ago, ALarson said: It's not an either or situation Scott. Maybe for you it is, but I'd wager many don't agree (and I know for sure it isn't for many members). You seem to live in a very black and white, letter of the law world. That may work for you, but definitely does not for many. I completely respect that you believe as you do and understand it works well for you. I mean that too. It's not a matter of whether I live in a "black-and-white, letter-of-the-law world." It's a simple question that calls for an unequivocal answer. If the Church president sends out a statement over his signature, can it be relied upon as signifying his intended message? Yes or no? If not, why not.
ALarson Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm not asking about personal preference here. I'm asking whether you believe a statement of doctrine, policy, whatever is less authentic because the Church president delivers it in written form with his signature than it is if he personally speaks it. I've answered you honestly about that. You can keep asking the same question and I'll continue giving you my honest response that will continue to be the same. I'm not sure what you're attempting to get me to admit here, but you're way off base if you think I've ever advocated that a signed letter from the first presidency is to be disregarded or that I believe it's not valid. Hopefully that'll end this line of questioning. I've explained to you why I feel as I do (numerous times) and that I have found many members feel the same (others here have expressed this to you as well). Your experience and feelings may be different and I acknowledge that. Neither is right or wrong....just different.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 18 minutes ago, ALarson said: Not temple recommends, but I have heard of them accepting assignments or helping within certain organizations and contributing to the ward. I don't know about official callings. Others may know more who have posted of having personal experience with this. Well, I'm sure we both recognize that helping to set up chairs at the meetinghouse or hoeing beets at the welfare farm is not the same thing as being given a teaching or leadership calling in the ward or stake. I should think such a thing would be highly irregular for anyone engaged in an ongoing violation of the law of chastity, gay or straight, regardless of how well-loved and fellowshiped that person was. But maybe I'm naive. I do notice that Tom Christofferson was not rebaptized with his blessings restored until after he had eneded his 20-year relationship with his homosexual partner, even though the ward leadership and members had welcomed the two of them with open arms.
JulieM Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It's not a matter of whether I live in a "black-and-white, letter-of-the-law world." It's a simple question that calls for an unequivocal answer. If the Church president sends out a statement over his signature, can it be relied upon as signifying his intended message? Yes or no? If not, why not. When did it become wrong for church members to want to hear the voice of their prophet who speaks for God over having a letter read to us by our bishop from the first presidency? Shouldn't we want to listen when the prophet speaks and watch him at every possible opportunity? They aren't even close to being equal (letter vs. actually hearing him speak). The question of validity is kind of beside the point! Of course a letter signed by the first presidency is valid . Has someone stated it isn't?
ALarson Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Well, I'm sure we both recognize that helping to set up chairs at the meetinghouse or hoeing beets at the welfare farm is not the same thing as being given a teaching or leadership calling in the ward or stake. Wow. No, what I've heard is that they have assisted a ward choir director with the choir, even played the piano or organ in meetings, helped with scouting (with a specific merit badge), been greeters, put together and printed ward programs or helped in the library. Those are a few that I am aware of (not personally, but through members in other wards and posted online). Edited September 19, 2017 by ALarson
ksfisher Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 1 minute ago, JulieM said: When did it become wrong for church members to want to hear the voice of their prophet who speaks for God over having a letter read to us by our bishop from the first presidency? Shouldn't we want to listen when the prophet speaks and watch him at every possible opportunity? They aren't even close to being equal (letter vs. actually hearing him speak). The question of validity is kind of beside the point! Of course a letter signed by the first presidency is valid . Has someone stated it isn't? You seem to be equivocating here. You're saying that a letter is valid but that's it's isn't the same as hearing it from the prophets own lips. You say that a prophet speaks for God but don't seem to give the same weight to a prophet writing for God. A letter from the First Presidency (which the President of the Church is the head of) is not the same as the prophet speaking. Does President Monson really have to come out and say everything himself? Do we are members of the church not trust those whom President Monson has called and given assignments to? Would those who doubt believe any more if they heard President Monson speak on an issue? 2
JulieM Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, ksfisher said: You seem to be equivocating here. You're saying that a letter is valid but that's it's isn't the same as hearing it from the prophets own lips. You say that a prophet speaks for God but don't seem to give the same weight to a prophet writing for God. A letter from the First Presidency (which the President of the Church is the head of) is not the same as the prophet speaking. Does President Monson really have to come out and say everything himself? Do we are members of the church not trust those whom President Monson has called and given assignments to? Would those who doubt believe any more if they heard President Monson speak on an issue? Not at all what I stated. You completely misunderstood. Both are just as valid of course! But I love hearing the prophet speak. There is no way I would choose a letter from the first presidency being read to me over hearing the sweet love from and the words expressed from President Monson to the members. That's what I was saying. There's nothing wrong with members wanting that even if a letter has been read in their ward and they cover the same subject. Edited September 19, 2017 by JulieM
Scott Lloyd Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 12 minutes ago, JulieM said: Not at all what I stated. You completely misunderstood. Both are just as valid of course! But I love hearing the prophet speak. There is no way I would choose a letter from the first presidency being read to me over hearing the sweet love from and the words expressed from President Monson to the members. That's what I was saying. There's nothing wrong with members wanting that even if a letter has been read in their ward and they cover the same subject. I don't think anybody here has said there is anything wrong with personally preferring the spoken word. What is problematic is the suggestion, through word or action, that the prophet's written word carries less weight, validity, truth, authenticity, what-have-you, because it is delivered in written rather than spoken form. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, ALarson said: I've answered you honestly about that. You can keep asking the same question and I'll continue giving you my honest response that will continue to be the same. I'm not sure what you're attempting to get me to admit here, but you're way off base if you think I've ever advocated that a signed letter from the first presidency is to be disregarded or that I believe it's not valid. Hopefully that'll end this line of questioning. I've explained to you why I feel as I do (numerous times) and that I have found many members feel the same (others here have expressed this to you as well). Your experience and feelings may be different and I acknowledge that. Neither is right or wrong....just different. So I take it that your answer to this question is yes, then: Quote If the Church president sends out a statement over his signature, can it be relied upon as signifying his intended message? Edited September 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
rongo Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: And issued temple recommends? And Church callings? Not everyone engaged in other forms of apostasy is summarily excommunicated either, or even subjected to a disciplinary council. It seems to me local leaders are given a good deal of latitude over such things. From what I've observed of recent excommunications -- those that have been well-publicized because the person being excommunicated chose to make it so -- Church discipline is never dispensed lightly or given out hastily. Leaders are very hesitant, almost to a fault, before finally convening a disciplinary council, and it only happens when there is no other reasonable course of action. Perhaps this is as it should be. I definitely see more scrutiny given by the Brethren to how priesthood leaders run the Church at the local level. The counsel I received on Saturday about dissent and dissenters in the Church today, and the ensuing discussion, shows that this is a primary concern for the Brethren. You can't have maverick leaders disagreeing personally and issuing recommends for people whom the Church deems unworthy, and there are some who would. It's only a matter of time before things like this happen and are publicized. What to do about it? I think PR considerations are going to have to become less of a worry in lieu of doing what needs to be done. 1
ALarson Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 37 minutes ago, JulieM said: When did it become wrong for church members to want to hear the voice of their prophet who speaks for God over having a letter read to us by our bishop from the first presidency? Shouldn't we want to listen when the prophet speaks and watch him at every possible opportunity? They aren't even close to being equal (letter vs. actually hearing him speak). The question of validity is kind of beside the point! Of course a letter signed by the first presidency is valid . Has someone stated it isn't? As far as I know, no one here has stated that. I admit I may have not seen all the posts though.
ALarson Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 Just now, rongo said: I definitely see more scrutiny given by the Brethren to how priesthood leaders run the Church at the local level. The counsel I received on Saturday about dissent and dissenters in the Church today, and the ensuing discussion, shows that this is a primary concern for the Brethren. We have felt this some from our stake leaders too (and from on up for them). I really think the Denver Snuffer type movements have them watching (and for good reason many times). I've seen none of that in my own ward, so far. But I've read that many of them secretly follow him, but pretend outwardly to be active, believing members of the church who you'd never suspect. That's just plain odd to me. The survey on the other thread (that Papa) posted is pretty interesting too. But it may also have nothing to do with this. 4 minutes ago, rongo said: I think PR considerations are going to have to become less of a worry in lieu of doing what needs to be done. Maybe. I think when it crosses over into gay issues or SSM couples getting ex'd, the church wants no more bad publicity on that topic. At least that's my opinion.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 (edited) 30 minutes ago, rongo said: I definitely see more scrutiny given by the Brethren to how priesthood leaders run the Church at the local level. The counsel I received on Saturday about dissent and dissenters in the Church today, and the ensuing discussion, shows that this is a primary concern for the Brethren. You can't have maverick leaders disagreeing personally and issuing recommends for people whom the Church deems unworthy, and there are some who would. I would certainly welcome more of such scrutiny to avoid such things. I agree that Church leadership is no place for a maverick. Quote It's only a matter of time before things like this happen and are publicized. What to do about it? I think PR considerations are going to have to become less of a worry in lieu of doing what needs to be done. I agree. And I think that should apply across the spectrum of political ideology, from Snufferites to progressives. Edited September 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
rongo Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 21 minutes ago, ALarson said: We have felt this some from our stake leaders too (and from on up for them). I really think the Denver Snuffer type movements have them watching (and for good reason many times). We were told that dissenters come in two "colors:" those who look beyond the mark and say that the Brethren aren't righteous enough (Snufferites, et. al.), and those who want the Church to become more accepted and praised by the world (gay marriage advocates, et. al.). The survey on the other thread (that Papa) posted is pretty interesting too. But it may also have nothing to do with this. It sounded to me like that had something to do with it. And, trying to stop the bleeding on bored members not going to church. One can hope that, eventually, classes and curriculum gets better, but that will probably take y-e-a-r-s. I think when it crosses over into gay issues or SSM couples getting ex'd, the church wants no more bad publicity on that topic. I think you're right. I also think that bad publicity should stop being the primary consideration. 1
Bernard Gui Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Thinking said: I finally watched the end of the video and this whole situation is just funny. This is my interpretation. After the prayer Elder Bednar decides to have a conversation with the young woman who is seated right next to him. At the same time Sister Bednar starts to stand up and catches herself and sits down and anxiously waits for her husband to stand. Elder Bednar realizes that everybody is waiting for him to stand., so he stands. Doh! IMO this cultural tradition of maintaining some order of who stands when is just silly. Perhaps, but using it as a launching pad to heap scorn on Elder Bednar is sillier. Edited September 19, 2017 by Bernard Gui 3
Bernard Gui Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 3 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I don't understand the attitude that says if you are genuinely troubled by a church policy, you're simply wrong, aren't listening, or are sowing the seeds of open rebellion. I understand why some people would feel better about this if the prophet were to speak personally, but that has nothing to do with being an ark-steadier or a closet apostate. I don't agree with a number of "policies," but if I used that as a stick to beat up an Apostle I would be stepping over a bright line into the realm of apostasy. More so with doctrines. 1
Bernard Gui Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 3 hours ago, jkwilliams said: This is not an either/or situation. Allowing the children of parents who are in a same-sex marriage to be baptized in no way equates to the church recognizing same-sex marriage and has no more impact on the sealing process than does the baptism of converts whose parents are not members. Except you didn't address my questions. If the parents are in a same-sex marriage, they are no longer members of the Church. Not only that, they are apostate. There could be no sealing to them; therefore, the Church would be cruelly depriving them of the blessings of sealing to parents.
Bernard Gui Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 3 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Oddly enough, the families I know have had a marked decrease in harmony because of the policy change. Custodial agreements that had been made amicably are now being revisited, more than a few with real contention because now it's not just custody but the child's eligibility for baptism and church membership at stake. If that was the purpose, it may not be having the intended result. Sounds like the parents are the cause of distress for the children, not the Church. Perhaps some repentance and reconciliation would help the matter. A bit of honesty before saying "I do" would also help. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 1 hour ago, JulieM said: Not at all what I stated. You completely misunderstood. Both are just as valid of course! But I love hearing the prophet speak. There is no way I would choose a letter from the first presidency being read to me over hearing the sweet love from and the words expressed from President Monson to the members. That's what I was saying. There's nothing wrong with members wanting that even if a letter has been read in their ward and they cover the same subject. You said in your prior post that "the question of validitiy is ... beside the point." This strikes me as off the mark. The question of validity is the very point. Otherwise, it becomes a matter of giving style precedence and priority over substance. What a person says will always be more important than how he/she says it.
Bernard Gui Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 3 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I'm sure Scott can clarify, but as I read it, there's no stated process for requesting an exemption with same-sex households. There is a stated process. It is this.... Quote As always, local leaders may request further guidance in particular instances when they have questions. 1
Bernard Gui Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't agree that you can competently say how "most members" would feel about it. I have to think that a reasonable person would regard a written communication signed by the Church president as having come from the Church president. Let's suppose that such an address were given, but I slept through it on my recliner in the family room. If I read it later, would it have a lesser impact and importance? 1
JulieM Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You said in your prior post that "the question of validitiy is ... beside the point." This strikes me as off the mark. The question of validity is the very point. I stated that both are "valid of course". My point is a person doesn't have to believe the letter isn't valid just because they also want to listen to the prophet speak. One does not necessarily follow the other. You misunderstood, but that's what I was saying. Edited September 19, 2017 by JulieM
ALarson Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I have to think that a reasonable person would regard a written communication signed by the Church president as having come from the Church president. No one has stated otherwise, have they? Has someone doubted that the letter read and signed by the first presidency wasn't from them? I certainly did not in the post you quoted and responded to with the above statement.
ALarson Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 (edited) 42 minutes ago, rongo said: We were told that dissenters come in two "colors:" those who look beyond the mark and say that the Brethren aren't righteous enough (Snufferites, et. al.), and those who want the Church to become more accepted and praised by the world (gay marriage advocates, et. al.). We've been told that a person can fall off the straight and narrow path onto either side of the path....too far right or too far left. I found that analogy to be a good one 42 minutes ago, rongo said: It sounded to me like that had something to do with it. And, trying to stop the bleeding on bored members not going to church. One can hope that, eventually, classes and curriculum gets better, but that will probably take y-e-a-r-s. Yes, I agree. Honestly though, I'm not encouraged with what I'm seeing for next year. But we've tried to call some interesting teachers for each auxiliary and we'll see. We have a lot of members who leave after SM which worries us (when asked many say because the classes are boring or there's nothing new....stuff like that and I get it) 42 minutes ago, rongo said: I think you're right. I also think that bad publicity should stop being the primary consideration. Yes, it should. But, we will see if it does. The leaders walk a tight rope regarding the PR issue (especially with SSM and gay issues). Edited September 19, 2017 by ALarson
Recommended Posts