Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[Calm]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think Scott's statement about never seeing this happen, is similar to the Dan Peterson blog post of a week or so ago about there never being any valid criticisms of the church.  This idea is rooted, not in objective observable reality, but in the subjective views of his position of loyalty to the institution.  

"Yes, there can be valid criticisms of the Church."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/09/can-valid-criticisms-church.html#i2J003MOlXLMLVly.99

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Your perspective is also clear, no criticisms are valid PoV.  Dan P. would be proud.

So I've now been compared to Daniel Peterson. Am I now expected to shrink in abject humiliation?

Sorry. I'm not part of the perpetual lynch mob targeting him, so the intended insult is lost on me.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

No, this does not and would not happen without consulting with the presiding authority in that meeting.  A counselor in a bishopric, for example, may suggest an action, but would not take any action without the consent of the bishop or other presiding authority.  To think otherwise is to misunderstand church governance.  

Does not and would not, pretty strong language when you consider the church is run by lay clergy.  Sorry your bold claim doesn't hold water.  The officially correct way of doing things often doesn't work well on the ground, common sense observations throughout my life have shown this to be true.  

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Yes, there can be valid criticisms of the Church."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/09/can-valid-criticisms-church.html#i2J003MOlXLMLVly.99

Thanks, I read the follow up post too.  Let me put this as kindly as I know how, Dan Peterson's perspectives I find to be quite different than mine.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"Yes, there can be valid criticisms of the Church."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/09/can-valid-criticisms-church.html#i2J003MOlXLMLVly.99

That was a good blog post, by the way. I almost highlighted it here on this board on the thread which prompted it.

If I may try a brief summation, he was saying that, yes, there can be valid criticisms of the Church, but if the Church is true, then by definition there cannot be valid evidence against its truthfulness. There might be evidence that appears valid for a while, but it must ultimately be found to be invalid if, indeed, the Church is objectively true.

I think he made a good point, the logic of which apparently escapes hope_for_things.

I don't get hope_for_things's comparison of my argument on this thread to his blog post though. I just don't see the relationship.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So I've now been compared to Daniel Peterson. Am I now expected to shrink in abject humiliation?

Sorry. I'm not part of the perpetual lynch mob targeting him, so the intended insult is lost on me.

Hah, lynch mob hyperbole.  Poor Dan I'm sure he's had to hire body guards and must be scared for his safety.  From what I've seen the guy invites controversy and I suspect he loves the attention.  

I was just comparing the similarities to your approaches on a subject like this.  

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, I read the follow up post too.  Let me put this as kindly as I know how, Dan Peterson's perspectives I find to be quite different than mine.  

Based on the fact that you misquoted him, I'm thinking you failed to grasp his point.

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The bishop, or othr presiding authority, is responsible for the content of and has an obligation to see that correct doctrine is taught in church meetings.  What is bad form is to hijack a meeting to put across your own particular view, especially when that view is in opposition to the doctinre of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

It is completely within the authority of a presiding officer to ask anyone to sit down who is teaching false doctine.

Testimony meeting is for sharing personal beliefs, she didn't hijack anything.  On the other hand I can't tell you how many 10 minute long travel logs I've heard where I wished the Bishop would please stop.  

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Does not and would not, pretty strong language when you consider the church is run by lay clergy.  Sorry your bold claim doesn't hold water.  The officially correct way of doing things often doesn't work well on the ground, common sense observations throughout my life have shown this to be true.  

In a lifetime of Church membership, I've never seen a person conducting a meeting usurp the role that rightfully belongs to the person who is presiding. The very notion seems alien to me.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, I read the follow up post too.  Let me put this as kindly as I know how, Dan Peterson's perspectives I find to be quite different than mine.  

I think Calm's point is that you misquoted Peterson, claiming he said the opposite of what he actually did say.

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think hope_for_things's and Pete Ahlstrom's idea of a show of respect and courtesy being "hero worship" is rooted, not in objective reality, but in subjective views of their own position of disdain and contempt for the institution.

 

Touché!  I guess we're all just part of one disfunctional religious family.

 Disdain is reserved for the harmful traditions only, keep the good, discard the bad.  

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Based on the fact that you misquoted him, I'm thinking you failed to grasp his point.

I quoted his original post, the follow up wasn't much better.  

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In a lifetime of Church membership, I've never seen a person conducting a meeting usurp the role that rightfully belongs to the person who is presiding. The very notion seems alien to me.

Sounds like two biases at play here, a confirmation bias and a consistency bias.  Nice combo!  

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think Calm's point is that you misquoted Peterson, claiming he said the opposite of what he actually did say.

Dan's follow up post didn't change his original position much if at all, it just served to stroke his ego more.  The quote I took is still posted in the title of the original blog, which hasn't been redacted by Dan.  

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Touché!  I guess we're all just part of one disfunctional religious family.

 Disdain is reserved for the harmful traditions only, keep the good, discard the bad.  

Given that one of the things you would discard is the veracity of the Book of Mormon with all that entails, I'm afraid when you got done, all that would be left of the Church of Jesus Christ would be a vacuous and impotent hulk.

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Dan's follow up post didn't change his original position much if at all, it just served to stroke his ego more.  The quote I took is still posted in the title of the original blog, which hasn't been redacted by Dan.  

 

The title of the first is "Can There Be Any Valid Criticisms of the Church?" The title of the second is "Son of 'Can There Be Any Valid Criticisms of the Church?'"

In both titles, it's a question, not a statement. It repeats the title of a thread on this board. And in the body of the blog post, he answers it, saying yes, there can be valid criticisms, but no, if the Church is true, there cannot be valid evidence against its truthfulness.

I think you are playing fast and loose with the facts here, just as you were performing statistical legerdemain a couple of days ago on the thread about the ethnic makeup of the Seventy and the thread got closed before I could notice it and call you on it.

 

 

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't see that it would hurt.

But I'm not sure I've ever seen it done.

For that matter, I think it would be extremely rare for a presiding officer to leave a meeting early.

 

When I served in the bishopric, my bishop was an obgyn.  He would get paged regularly during sacrament meeting. When that happened he would quietly get up and leave the meeting. Sometimes he would come back. Sometimes he did not return. U

Not or once did I feel it was appropriate for me to stand up and take over the pulpit to announce that now I was in charge.  Do you think I  should have?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

When I served in the bishopric, my bishop was an obgyn.  He would get paged regularly during sacrament meeting. When that happened he would quietly get up and leave the meeting. Sometimes he would come back. Sometimes he did not return. U

Not or once did I feel it was appropriate for me to stand up and take over the pulpit to announce that now I was in charge.  Do you think I  should have?

As I've indicated, it would not have bothered me either way.

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Testimony meeting is for sharing personal beliefs, she didn't hijack anything.  On the other hand I can't tell you how many 10 minute long travel logs I've heard where I wished the Bishop would please stop.  

The purpose of fast and testimony is to share testimony and faith promoting experiences, not to share personal beliefs.  

I agree that too many travel logs end up being shared, but these, in and of themselves are not damaging.

The sharing of false doctine, on the other hand, does have the potential to lead others astray.  As moved upon by the Spirit it is appropriate for a presiding officer to ask someone to stop.

Edited September 16, 2017 by ksfisher

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Testimony meeting is for sharing personal beliefs, she didn't hijack anything.  On the other hand I can't tell you how many 10 minute long travel logs I've heard where I wished the Bishop would please stop.  

While long travelogues can be annoying and, at their worst, inappropriate, they are not in the same league as using sacrament meeting pulpit time to proclaim false doctrine or oppose the teachings and standards of the Church.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Given that one of the things you would discard is the veracity of the Book of Mormon with all that entails, I'm afraid when you got done, all that would be left of the Church of Jesus Christ would be a vacuous and impotent hulk.

If I were king for just one day, I would soften the expectations for black and white thinking on everything including the BoM historicity debate as it misses the point anyway, which would open the doors to more inclusive Christian living and whether or not the church's numbers grew or not the participants in Mormonism would be enriched.  

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If I were king for just one day, I would soften the expectations for black and white thinking on everything including the BoM historicity debate as it misses the point anyway, which would open the doors to more inclusive Christian living and whether or not the church's numbers grew or not the participants in Mormonism would be enriched.  

In essence, you would strip the Church of Jesus Christ of everything that makes it unique and gives it salvific power.

No thanks. I will pray that your vision never comes to pass.

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

The title of the first is "Can There Be Any Valid Criticisms of the Church?" The title of the second is "Son of 'Can There Be Any Valid Criticisms of the Church?'"

In both titles, it's a question, not a statement. It repeats the title of a thread on this board. And in the body of the blog post, he answers it, saying yes, there can be valid criticisms, but no, if the Church is true, there cannot be valid evidence against its truthfulness.

I think you are playing fast and loose with the facts here, just as you were performing statistical legerdemain a couple of days ago on the thread about the ethnic makeup of the Seventy and the thread got closed before I could notice it and call you on it.

 

 

 

To correct the record, the specific quote I was referring to from Dan's first post was not in the title of the post, I remembered that incorrectly, it was in the body of the post.  Here is the quote.  

"It’s in that sense that I say that there can, in the end, be no valid evidence against the claims of Mormonism.  Ultimately, you see, there can never be proof that something that is true is actually false."

Furthermore I believe the Mods closed that last thread precisely because of your negative slander towards me and what you think was playing loose with stats, but why don't you keep up the personal jabs while you're at it and maybe you can get this thread closed too.  

[hope_for_things]

57 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The purpose of fast and testimony is to share testimony and faith promoting experiences, not to share personal beliefs.  

I agree thst too many travel logs end up being shared, but these, in and of themselves are not damaging.

The sharing of false doctine, on the other hand, does have the potential to lead others astray.  As moved upon by the Spirit it is appropriate for a presiding officer to ask someone to stop.

Her doctrine wasn't false and she was moved by the spirit.  

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In essence, you would strip the Church of Jesus Christ of everything that makes it unique and gives it salvific power.

No thanks. I will pray that your vision never comes to pass.

No need to fear, I'm sure the Pharisee types who guard the orthodoxies would spot me a mile away.