Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yikes, hoping someone never makes it to the office of president is not hoping they die.  I'm worried about how he'd govern based on some things I've noticed, I don't have any rumors about what he does in his private life.  

For Pres. Benson I can understand why some were worried based on his public positions and even his tendency towards conspiracy theories, but I would agree with you that as a president he largely governed in much more moderation.  

To be fair, the only way to avoid the office is for him to die before his senior brothers.

But I assume you weren't calling for his death. I could see how a misunderstanding could occur

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Says who?

Those without authority

[Bernard Gui]

29 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Those without authority

I was questioning his authority to demand we question authority. 

[hope_for_things]

23 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Where do you think that I'm being led astray?  Do you believe that the doctrine of the church supports same sex relationships?  If it does then I'm being led astray along with our prophets, seers, and revelators.

Anytime we fall short of emulating the principles of the gospel we are being led astray and no flawed humans are immune to this, it's part of our condition.  

[hope_for_things]

22 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

"Yikes?" The only way Elder Bednar could become President is if he outlives his peers. Hoping he doesn't "make it" seems

like wishing for his premature demise. If he were to "make it," would you sustain him? How far will you take this animus?

Stop with the accusations, I'm not wishing for anyone's death.  I said that earlier and your continued pursuit of this implication is very disrespectful and uncalled for.  I'm done talking with you.  

[hope_for_things]

17 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

To be fair, the only way to avoid the office is for him to die before his senior brothers.

But I assume you weren't calling for his death. I could see how a misunderstanding could occur

No it's really not, they could change the way seniority works, this has been proposed before by many people including past Apostles.  They could implement emeritus status, or Bednar could resign, or they could invent any number of different methods for determining the next prophet.  

Even if no new processes were created, supposedly when any new leader is selected all the apostles pray about it.  Why couldn't God inspire them to chose a different candidate?  This idea that God selects the candidates via determining who lives the longest isn't scriptural and makes no sense to me.  

[hope_for_things]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yeah, that too, of course. Making video recordings of sacrament meetings is a clear violation of policy and amounts to trespassing. 

You guys are so over the top about the Savanna incident it really makes me laugh.  So glad you're not in charge.  

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Anytime we fall short of emulating the principles of the gospel we are being led astray and no flawed humans are immune to this, it's part of our condition.  

ksfisher has shown no evidence here of either falling short of the principles of the gospel or being led astray. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You guys are so over the top about the Savanna incident it really makes me laugh.  So glad you're not in charge.  

The "Savanna incident" itself was way over the top. 

But it was dealt with as it should have been. I have every expectation that such incidents will be so dealt with in the foreseeable future, so I have no need to be "in charge."

[ksfisher]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Anytime we fall short of emulating the principles of the gospel we are being led astray and no flawed humans are immune to this, it's part of our condition.  

I don't see how falling short can be equated with being led astray.  If I fail to be kind to a neighbor it doesn't necessarily follow that I'm on the metaphorical path to hell (a little hyperbole there), it just means that there are areas in life I need to improve.  

Otherwise, I don't really see that you've answered my question.  How do you think I'm being led astray? 

Edited September 18, 2017 by ksfisher

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

ksfisher has shown no evidence here of either falling short of the principles of the gospel or being led astray. 

Ironically the very proclamation that there is no evidence of falling short, is in and of itself evidence of falling short.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The "Savanna incident" itself was way over the top. 

But it was dealt with as it should have been. I have every expectation that such incidents will be so dealt with in the foreseeable future, so I have no need to be "in charge."

Many people I know believe it was dealt with very poorly, but I think some good may have come from how it was handled and the publicity it got, and I think future handling may be improved because of it.  

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't see how falling short can be equated with being led astray.  If I fail to ve kind to a neighbor it doesn't necessarily follow that I'm on the metaphorical path to hell (a little hyperbole there), it just means that there are areas in life I need to improve.  

Otherwise, I don't really see that you've answered my question.  How do you think I'm being led astray? 

Falling short and being led astray I see as very similar.  It comes down to how we love and how we include and how we treat others.  I don't see LGBT individuals as inferior in anyway.  I believe they are worthy and loved by God as they are fully and in every way including their sexual and gender identities.  This is core to the gospel of Jesus that speaks to me, and I'm saddened at how the dominant LDS culture currently falls short.

But I'm hopeful that as individuals humble themselves to be taught truth they will be led to it, and their hearts will open to these truths.  

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Stop with the accusations, I'm not wishing for anyone's death.  I said that earlier and your continued pursuit of this implication is very disrespectful and uncalled for.  I'm done talking with you.  

You made that rather shocking statement. Maybe you didn't consider the implications of hoping he never "makes it to the Presidency." There's only one way that would happen. That is disrespectful and uncalled for, too. Perhaps you could retract it and we can move in. Your efforts to excuse it have not been very convincing. 

Edited September 17, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Ironically the very proclamation that there is no evidence of falling short, is in and of itself evidence of falling short.  

I, on the other hand, see the proclamation that ksfisher is "falling short" as an instance of unrighteous judgment. 

Edited September 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Many people I know believe it was dealt with very poorly, but I think some good may have come from how it was handled and the publicity it got, and I think future handling may be improved because of it.  

Given that the local leadership was blindsided by the occurrence, I'm at a loss to conceive of how else it could have been dealt with that would have been more appropriate. 

My hunch, though, is that you and the "many people" you reference would not have been satisfied with anything short of total and unconditional capitulation to having the meeting hijacked, a thing that would have been altogether unacceptable. 

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You made that rather shocking statement. Maybe you didn't consider the implications of hoping he never "makes it to the Presidency." There's only one way that would happen. That is disrespectful and uncalled for, too. Perhaps you could retract it. Your efforts to excuse have not been very effective. 

Well, .Elder Bednar could also sin bad enough he loses his temple recommend,  that would work as well with the current process.  

Given that Elder Holland or Utchdorf (both were born in 1940 while Bednar was born in 1952) would have to live to be 97-102 if Elder Bednar lived until 85-90 if the process stays the same and given the process has been the same for over a century, an early death is a reasonable inference from hope's comment even if he wasn't thinking of implications.  In the future if the topic comes up again, specifying "I hope the succession process changes" rather than just doesn't "make it to the Presidency" would be wise, imo.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Many people I know believe it was dealt with very poorly, but I think some good may have come from how it was handled and the publicity it got, and I think future handling may be improved because of it.  

Pity we were never given the chance to see how the Church was planning on handling it before the drama kicked in.

[Bernard Gui]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Well, .Elder Bednar could also sin bad enough he loses his temple recommend,  that would work as well with the current process.  

Given that Elder Holland or Utchdorf (both were born in 1940 while Bednar was born in 1952) would have to live to be 97-102 if Elder Bednar lived until 85-90 if the process stays the same and given the process has been the same for over a century, an early death is a reasonable inference from hope's comment even if he wasn't thinking of implications.  In the future if the topic comes up again, specifying "I hope the succession process changes" rather than just doesn't "make it to the Presidency" would be wise, imo.

Indeed. I wouldn't want to wish he would sin so he would not "make it."

Edited September 17, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed. I wouldn't want to wish he would sin so he would not "make it."

Or have another reason he needed to resign for.  Why would he resign save for a massive family tragedy, a moral issue, or a loss of faith?  While some may not see the last as a negative thing, believing Saints do.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

Given that Elder Holland or Utchdorf (both were born in 1940 while Bednar was born in 1952) would have to live to be 97-102 if Elder Bednar lived until 85-90 if the process stays the same and given the process has been the same for over a century, an early death is a reasonable inference from hope's comment even if he wasn't thinking of implications.  In the future if the topic comes up again, specifying "I hope the succession process changes" rather than just doesn't "make it to the Presidency" would be wise, imo.

It's not the accuser at fault for assuming the worst about my motives?  Not only once, but after I clarified my perspective the accuser ignored my clarification and continued the slander.  

In good faith if someone has a question about another participant's perspective, ask the question first without any subtle accusation implied.  Then second,  after the person clarifies, trust the clarification, or ask follow up questions if further clarification is needed.  This how good etiquette works with a spirit of mutual respect. 

Also, I gave multiple examples of possible scenarios for a succession process earlier.  This isn't a simple either he dies or sins issue, lots of possibilities.  

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or have another reason he needed to resign for.  Why would he resign save for a massive family tragedy, a moral issue, or a loss of faith?  While some may not see the last as a negative thing, believing Saints do.

Why did Pope Benedict resign?  

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It's not the accuser at fault for assuming the worst about my motives?  Not only once, but after I clarified my perspective the accuser ignored my clarification and continued the slander.  

In good faith if someone has a question about another participant's perspective, ask the question first without any subtle accusation implied.  Then second,  after the person clarifies, trust the clarification, or ask follow up questions if further clarification is needed.  This how good etiquette works with a spirit of mutual respect. 

Also, I gave multiple examples of possible scenarios for a succession process earlier.  This isn't a simple either he dies or sins issue, lots of possibilities.  

It was a shockingly insensitive comment you made about an Apostle of Jesus Christ who some day may be the President of the Church, God's spokesman on earth, in a thread that turned out as a vehicle to demean and ridicule the man. Surely you can acknowledge that your wish has serious implications that are based on fact, not on assumptions, perspective, or unreasonable scenarios.

Which one of your scenarios are you hoping for? Would you refuse to sustain him?

Edited September 18, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It's not the accuser at fault for assuming the worst about my motives?  Not only once, but after I clarified my perspective the accuser ignored my clarification and continued the slander.  

In good faith if someone has a question about another participant's perspective, ask the question first without any subtle accusation implied.  Then second,  after the person clarifies, trust the clarification, or ask follow up questions if further clarification is needed.  This how good etiquette works with a spirit of mutual respect. 

Also, I gave multiple examples of possible scenarios for a succession process earlier.  This isn't a simple either he dies or sins issue, lots of possibilities.  

I am simply pointing out your original comment was poorly thought out or expressed and you should choose a different way of saying it in the future.  I am not condemning or judging you for making it.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Calm

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

You made that rather shocking statement. Maybe you didn't consider the implications of hoping he never "makes it to the Presidency." There's only one way that would happen. That is disrespectful and uncalled for, too. Perhaps you could retract it and we can move in. Your efforts to excuse it have not been very convincing. 

You are being obnoxious.  The statement has been clarified twice.  Yet that is not enough for you.  You misunderstood what she was saying.  The problem is not with what she said.  The problem is that you want your interpretation of what was meant rather than what was intended.  Perhaps you should take a minute and ponder why you want your interpretation to be the correct interpretation rather than the one the poster actually meant.  Geeze.  A bit arrogant don't you think.