Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course, but to claim Joseph wouldn't qualify for a current temple recommend is absurd. 

He was considered worthy back then because requirements were different.  By today's requirements (strict adherence to the current WofW), he most definitely would not be considered worthy.  I agree it seems absurd on the face of it, but if we're honest and don't try to play a game with words or twist meanings....he'd not get a recommend today if he answered that he enjoyed drinking wine (and possibly other things too....).  

I'm not going to debate you on this....it was just a side comment that I'd heard some discuss.  I believe Joseph would make sure he was temple worthy if he was Prophet today .

It was just an example of something else that has changed (questions and requirements to be temple worthy).

Edited September 21, 2017 by ALarson

[Avatar4321]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Looking at the entire statement in context tells me that perhaps he felt like it was a discussion from his perspective, but I suspect it was seriously lacking.  

so he thinks they have a discussion. No one present says different. But you are assuming they didn't. Why? What reason do we have to presume he was being dishonest or doesn't know what a discussion is/

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Or, polygamy will be allowed for those who can abide it, but not required of those who can't. 

Possibly.  But that's not what was once taught.  That's more along the lines of what is taught today.

Edited September 21, 2017 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

Just now, Avatar4321 said:

so he thinks they have a discussion. No one present says different. But you are assuming they didn't. Why? What reason do we have to presume he was being dishonest or doesn't know what a discussion is/

We only have his statement, we don't have the perspective or opinions of anyone else, so it makes no sense to say that "no one present says different" how do you know that?  

But even with his statement, we have clues, like I mentioned earlier.  Sorry if you're not seeing it.  I'm guessing you haven't had very many conversations with people in faith crisis, and I suspect this 70 hasn't either.  

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

He was considered worthy back then because requirements were different.  By today's requirements (strict adherence to the current WofW), he most definitely would not be considered worthy.  I agree it seems absurd on the face of it, but if we're honest and don't try to play a game with words or twist meanings....he'd not get a recommend today if he answered that he enjoyed drinking wine (and possibly other things too....).  

I'm not going to debate you on this....it was just a side comment that I'd heard some discuss.  I believe Joseph would make sure he was temple worthy if he was Prophet today .

It was just an example of something else that has changed (questions and requirements to be temple worthy).

So, let's talk about change without making meaningless claims. I'm all in for that.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

You seem to be suggesting that the Atonement isn't enough to cover some unspecified sin that she's committed at 12 years old. Maybe I'm not understanding you.

I hope I didn't write anything that would lead you to conclude this.  That's not what I meant at all. 

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Possibly.  But that's not what was once taught.  That's more along the lines of what is taught today.

Here a little, there a little. We will all know soon. By the way, did you intend to say I am being dishonest and playing with words? Please clarify.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

He was considered worthy back then because requirements were different.  By today's requirements (strict adherence to the current WofW), he most definitely would not be considered worthy.  I agree it seems absurd on the face of it, but if we're honest and don't try to play a game with words or twist meanings....he'd not get a recommend today if he answered that he enjoyed drinking wine (and possibly other things too....).  

I'm not going to debate you on this....it was just a side comment that I'd heard some discuss.  I believe Joseph would make sure he was temple worthy if he was Prophet today .

It was just an example of something else that has changed (questions and requirements to be temple worthy).

Actually, as President of the Church he would not need a recommend to enter the temple.

(Yes, I know that's not your point)

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

So, let's talk about change without making meaningless claims. I'm all in for that.

They may be meaningless to you and I respect that.   That's not the case for all, of course.

This thread has kind of been all over the place.  Change in the church over the years has just been a part of it, but no one needs to participate or comment on anything they believe is meaningless.    

 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Actually, as President of the Church he would not need a recommend to enter the temple.

(Yes, I know that's not your point)

Ha!  True!

They still have to remain worthy though, I'd imagine if it got out one was drinking wine, it wouldn't look good today 

Back then...it didn't seem to matter...

[Avatar4321]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Actually, as President of the Church he would not need a recommend to enter the temple.

(Yes, I know that's not your point)

if he did who would do the interview? And would they ask the same questions?

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

if he did who would do the interview? And would they ask the same questions?

One of my former stake president said that he once had a temple recommend that he'd signed on all three lines.  He was called into the stake presidency at stake conference but still served at his ward's bishop until the next Sunday.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

if he did who would do the interview? And would they ask the same questions?

Hopefully they know that they need to live by the same standards required of any other member who wants to remain temple worthy.

What question would you change (if any)? 

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Hopefully they know that they need to live by the same standards required of any other member who wants to remain temple worthy.

What question would you change (if any)? 

Do you sustain the president of the church...

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Do you sustain the president of the church...

I did think of that.....maybe for the president, but not for the other Apostles (who don't need a recommend either from what I understand....).  

Edited September 21, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Here a little, there a little. We will all know soon. By the way, did you intend to say I am being dishonest and playing with words? Please clarify.

No....I stated "we're", not "you're".

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No....I stated "we're", not "you're".

Perhaps in the future "we" can avoid using phrases such as "if we're honest and don't try to play a game with words or twist meanings" when responding to the argument of another poster. Consider what it may look like on the other side of the screen. 

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Perhaps in the future "we" can avoid using phrases such as "if we're honest and don't try to play a game with words or twist meanings" when responding to the argument of another poster. Consider what it may look like on the other side of the screen. 

I was referring to all of us in the conversation.  I'll most likely continue using that phrase when it applies to all involved and describes what I view is going on.

Edited September 21, 2017 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I do love the old hymns and music, I agree with you there.  However, many of their words have been changed too over the years for different reasons.  Even primary songs have been updated or changed. 

That was not my point. I was referring to reading first-hand comments that are remarkably consistent with words I hear in Church today and fundamental beliefs that have not changed, not changes in hymns or songs. By the way, my mother and father precipitated the change of the words of "For the Strength of the Hills." "Where the red untutored Indian seeketh here his rude delights" was eliminated and rightly so. I doubt Joseph F. Smith would be shocked by that.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Stargazer]

39 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Actually, as President of the Church he would not need a recommend to enter the temple.

(Yes, I know that's not your point)

This just reminded me of something.

The Queen of England does not hold a driving licence.  This is because driving licences in the UK are issued in her name, and she does not need to grant herself permission to drive!

I don't know why I decided this was relevant, but whatever.

And you'll note the British spelling in the above!  I'm practicing.

[Avatar4321]

28 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Hopefully they know that they need to live by the same standards required of any other member who wants to remain temple worthy.

What question would you change (if any)? 

do you sustain yourself seems mind of redundant

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

That was not my point. I was referring to reading first-hand comments that are remarkably consistent with words I hear in Church today and fundamental beliefs that have not changed, not changes in hymns or songs. By the way, my mother and father precipitated that change of the words of "For the Strength of the Hills." "Where the red untutored Indian seeketh here his rude delights" was eliminated and rightly so. I doubt Joseph F. Smith would be shocked by that.

I hope not....for sure that's true if he were alive today 

(I hadn't heard about that!  Wow...)

[Stargazer]

28 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

One of my former stake president said that he once had a temple recommend that he'd signed on all three lines.  He was called into the stake presidency at stake conference but still served at his ward's bishop until the next Sunday.

Hey, that happened to one of my former stake presidents too! Except in this case he decided to get one of his counselors to sign off on the final one. This would appear to be not so very rare -- but it would only occur if the temple recommend just happened to be coming due for renewal at just the right time1

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

do you sustain yourself seems mind of redundant

Yep (already covered above )!

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Or, polygamy will be allowed for those who can abide it, but not required of those who can't. 

Possibly.  But that's not what was once taught.  That's more along the lines of what is taught today.

Here's an example of what was once taught [emphasis added].

Quote

Question 4: Is plural or celestial marriage essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come?

Answer : Celestial marriage is essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come, as explained in the revelation concerning it but it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential....

Question 6: Can a Latter-day Saint be a true member of the Church and in good standing, who flatly denies the divinity and authenticity of the revelation on plural marriage?

Answer: No one can be counted a true Latter-day Saint who flatly denies the divinity of a revelation accepted as divine by the Church.

Question 7: Supposing that a true Saint has been married the second time—his first wife being dead—he is sealed to both for time and eternity, does this mean that polygamy will exist in the celestial glory?

Answer: If a man has had more than one wife sealed to him for time and eternity, of course it means that if faithful they will be his in celestial glory, as in the case of Abraham and others whose wives were "given to them of the Lord."

Charles Penrose, "Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered."

https://archive.org/details/improvementera15011unse

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui