Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

Not true from what I saw.  He clarified quickly for those who'd misunderstood his initial inquiry.  But you should really stop this as we do know now what he was asking from the beginning if we believe him.  He states he never changed what he asked for (only tried to make it more clear for those who initially didn't understand).  

I checked the flow again just now and even you definitely got it by the time you posted your quote from the newsroom (soon after his first post).From there on out, you should have dropped not understanding or questioning him.  I've done that too though (misinterpreted another poster only to later realize that I'd been mistaken).  It happens to all of us!

You know, I spent a lot of time in good faith researching to answer his questions. I found and copied the sources, made sure they were legitimate and pertinent, formatted them, refined them, pasted them in here with reasoned comments on why they legitimately represented the words of the Prophet. What we disagree on is what constitutes a legitimate communication from the Prophet. When one claims the Prophet has not commented publicly and then evidence is given that he has commented publicly at least 3 times is rejected for changing reasons as smac and I have documented, there is a problem. That is where the goalpost changes creeped in, but enough. We all need to operate with good faith, otherwise these things result.  We'll have to agree that we see things differently.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think few leaders desire having to be faced with this type of situation and really avoid dealing with this new policy if at all possible.

How would this be any more difficult to deal with than other behaviors that require Church discipline such as abuse, addiction, criminal offenses, apostasy, immorality? I have never met anyone who looked forward to participating in such a proceeding with gleeful anticipation. Have you?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour 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. 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. 

rongo, a question just occurred to me:

If your meeting was about dissent and dissenters in the Church, was there any attention given to the matter of how to handle individuals who attempt to take over fast and testimony meeting with contra-doctrinal declarations, antagonistic expressions, exit stories and the like?

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours 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?

How did we ever survive without instant communication and gratification? When I was a kid, we had to drive over a hundred miles to our stake center in Albuquerque to hear a telephone feed of the Priesthood session of General Conference. That was our only access to Conference until the written speeches came out. In other generations, the wait could be months. Now it's so easy that we become upset if it's not delivered when we want it in a timely and pleasant manner, but is it so much better? I don't think so.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You know, I spent a lot of time in good faith researching to answer his questions. I found and copied the sources, made sure they were legitimate and pertinent, formatted them, refined them, pasted them in here with reasoned comments on why they legitimately represented the words of the Prophet. What we disagree on is what constitutes a legitimate communication from the Prophet. When one claims the Prophet has not commented publicly and then evidence is given that he has commented publicly at least 3 times is rejected for changing reasons as smac and I have documented, there is a problem. That is where the goalpost changes creeped in, but enough. We all need to operate with good faith, otherwise these things result.  We'll have to agree that we see things differently.

Just read this Bernard and I want you to know I appreciate any time and effort you put into answering me.  Sorry there was apparently a miscommunication from the very beginning.  I knew what I meant when I first posted and never changed on that (honestly there was absolutely no goal post moving on my end with my intent and requests), but I do see that I could have been more clear in my very first post and understand why you misunderstood (although in my mind it made sense for the purpose I was asking) .  From there on out though, I was as clear as I could be and I think you knew rather soon on what I was asking for.

As far as you using the terms "legitimate communication" above , those are your words, not mine.  I never stated a letter from the first presidency was not a "legitimate communication" as I believe that it is.  However, there is no problem with requesting a different, specific type of source (which is what I was doing), but that does not mean all others were rejected (sorry if it appeared that way, but I was very familiar with those and was asking for something else....not rejecting them though as I believe they are valid).

Things can get confusing with all the back and forth, but thanks again for your efforts.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

As far as I know, no one here has stated that.  I admit I may have not seen all the posts though.  

The whole brouhaha here has been about the President neglecting to give a public speech and instead sending out surrogates and having bishops read official letters whose authorship is questionable to their congregations, shirking his duty to communicate directly to the members, and disrespecting a percentage of the members. From this, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a hierarchy of credibility when it comes to Church communication. For a century and a half the Church members dealt with this and thrived because of their faith. We have become soft. But as Brother Brigham stated (see below) the Lord won't allow that to become our habit.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How would this be any more difficult to deal with than other behaviors that require Church discipline such as abuse, addiction, criminal offenses, apostasy, immorality? I have never met anyone who looked forward to participating in such a proceeding with gleeful anticipation. Have you?

Of course not.

What I was referring to was that I know of no leaders who have a desire to seek out SSM couples for discipline.  Of course they also don't want to seek out anyone else for discipline either (but we were specifically discussing the new policy and those in SSMs).

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The whole brouhaha here has been about the President neglecting to give a public speech and instead sending out surrogates and having bishops read official letters whose authorship is questionable to their congregations, shirking his duty to communicate directly to the members, and disrespecting a percentage of the members. From this, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a hierarchy of credibility when it comes to Church communication. For a century and a half the Church members dealt with this and thrived because of their faith. We have become soft. But as Brother Brigham stated (see below) the Lord won't allow that to become our habit.

I was answering her question and the answer is still "no". No one has stated the letters are not valid.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No one has stated the letters are not valid.

Says the fellow who has repeatedly accused president Monson of "remaining silent."

[ALarson]

Just now, smac97 said:

Says the fellow who has repeatedly accused president Monson of "remaining silent."

I stated that he had not publicly spoken on the topic of SSM.  I still stand by that since you nor anyone else has been able to provide quotes from a public address by him.  The letters are of course, valid communication.

[Bernard Gui]

46 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

Yes, some have. Several have questioned who wrote the words, were they foisted on the Presidency by aggressive colleagues, were they prepared by a committee and signed off by the President, etc. For example, 

Quote

Posted 23 hours ago (edited)

   23 hours ago,  Bernard Gui said: 

Indeed. Your demands have been met and more.

No, not at all.  What I asked for does not exist.  But thanks for trying (I mean that).  We have no quotes from public addresses given by President Monson to the members on the topic of same-sex marriage. Those are what I asked for.  You can quote general letters (who know who wrote them?), press releases, and public documents written by lawyers.  If those satisfy you, I am certainly fine with that.  But again, that's not what I asked for, so you have not met my "demands" .

The quotes do not exist and I do have to ask why President Monson has not personally spoken to the members about this if it is so important?  

Edited 23 hours ago by ALarson

Emphasis added for clarity.

[Bernard Gui]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Just read this Bernard and I want you to know I appreciate any time and effort you put into answering me.  Sorry there was apparently a miscommunication from the very beginning.  I knew what I meant when I first posted and never changed on that (honestly there was absolutely no goal post moving on my end with my intent and requests), but I do see that I could have been more clear in my very first post and understand why you misunderstood (although in my mind it made sense for the purpose I was asking) .  From there on out though, I was as clear as I could be and I think you knew rather soon on what I was asking for.

As far as you using the terms "legitimate communication" above , those are your words, not mine.  I never stated a letter from the first presidency was not a "legitimate communication" as I believe that it is.  However, there is no problem with requesting a different, specific type of source (which is what I was doing), but that does not mean all others were rejected (sorry if it appeared that way, but I was very familiar with those and was asking for something else....not rejecting them though as I believe they are valid).

Things can get confusing with all the back and forth, but thanks again for your efforts.

Well, of course it became clear as things went on. The first post was very clear. You asked for information and gave an example of which you approved and of which you asked for more. From then it went down hill fast when other examples even more authoritative than that were presented were rejected. We all can communicate better, but I don't agree at all that parameters were not changed. From this end, they clearly were. We'll have to smoke the peace pipe on that one.

[Scott Lloyd]

It occurs to me that I have never heard a conference sermon from President Monson directly addressing the subject of incest. Or from any other Church president, for that matter.

Yet I'm confident he and other Church leaders are unalterably opposed to it.

 

[Bernard Gui]

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Of course not.

What I was referring to was that I know of no leaders who have a desire to seek out SSM couples for discipline.  Of course they also don't want to seek out anyone else for discipline either (but we were specifically discussing the new policy and those in SSMs).

I understand you to be saying that for the purposes of this discussion, it would be unpleasant and difficult, but that it would not be any more unpleasant and difficult than other matters, in which case I agree. However, the political fallout would be orders of magnitude greater, so I can imagine not wanting to participate in that firestorm. Who cares about a little spousal abuse when we can get a juicy story about evil white patriarchs persecuting folks who just want to be a family.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It occurs to me that I have never heard a conference sermon from President Monson directly addressing the subject of incest. Or from any other Church president, for that matter.

Yet I'm confident he and other Church leaders are unalterably opposed to it.

 

How about polygamy? Marrying your computer or your dog (recently in the news)? Embezzlement? OK, someone spoke out about multi-level marketing schemes a while back. 

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It occurs to me that I have never heard a conference sermon from President Monson directly addressing the subject of incest. Or from any other Church president, for that matter.

Yet I'm confident he and other Church leaders are unalterably opposed to it.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/11/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng

Edited September 20, 2017 by jkwilliams

[Bernard Gui]

Seriously though, Scott, there are more many things coming down the pike that will challenge societal norms in general and religious beliefs and practices in particular. An endless parade of cats and kittens that will jump out of the bag. I see this as further isolating the Church, making it starkly distinct from the general culture and more susceptible to persecution, and drawing away members who have some sort of vested personal interest in whatever variety of cat is popping out. Our own brothers and sisters making demands to alter doctrine has the effect of undoing the Restoration. In 1845, the Saints were able to escape to the mountains for refuge. That's no longer possible, because there are no mountains left. D&C 1 becomes more and more pertinent as the days go by. It's an odd world in which we live.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Seriously though, Scott, there are more many things coming down the pike that will challenge societal norms in general and religious beliefs and practices in particular. An endless parade of cats and kittens that will jump out of the bag. I see this as further isolating the Church, making it starkly distinct from the general culture and more susceptible to persecution, and drawing away members who have some sort of vested personal interest in whatever variety of cat is popping out. Our own brothers and sisters making demands to alter doctrine has the effect of undoing the Restoration. In 1845, the Saints were able to escape to the mountains for refuge. That's no longer possible, because there are no mountains left. D&C 1 becomes more important as the days go by.

"Undoing the Restoration."

Quite a concept!

First thing that comes to my mind in that vein is the attempt to recast the Book of Mormon as "inspired fiction."

But you're right, there are a host of things that are occurring and could yet occur toward such an endeavor.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/11/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng

Ah, but even though the title says President Kimball "speaks out," this is not a spoken sermon. It is a written article. Therefore it lacks validity, power, authenticity, presence, whatever else the naysayers fault President Monson's written communications for lacking.

Moreover, this article looks a lot like Miracle of Forgiveness. And you know how some people hate that and rejoiced when it went out of print.

Nope. I guess this doesn't count.

[Sine Saw Square]

It occurs to me that the Prophet nearly always addresses macro groups in his talks. Men, women, mothers youth, missionaries. The percentage of  homosexual members is by contrast small and very specific. Generalized messages of love and guidance still apply to them as they do for everyone.

The belief that if one's specific group is not addressed directly, then it must be a sign of uncaring or disinterest, is unfortunate.