Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, Danzo said:

What we are doing is have one quorum or auxiliary presidency member meet with the missionary correlation meeting each week. We rotate the organisations so each one gets meet with us every seven weeks. That seems to cut down on the extra meetings and allows us to focus on the one organisation when we meet with them. Seems to be working pretty good for right now.  

 

We are supposed to meet with the MCC twice a month, on top of being in ward council with them twice a month as well.  Your way seems better, just because it probably leads to less resentment about all the meetings.  Especially considering that those who are attending the ward council meeting are already usually really busy with their callings.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

It is my understanding the the girl wrote her own comments and that it was an adult friend and not the parents who caught the moment on their iPhone. That said it does seem that there was some advanced planning.

I suppose it comes down to intent, and it's difficult for anyone to judge that. 

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Regarding the 12 year old girl who shared her testimony about how God loves her even though she is gay; I find it sad and disgraceful that people use that as an example of apostasy being promulgated in F&T meeting.

She was clearly using this as an opportunity to make a declaration, to "come out of the closet".  It was not a testimony but a declaration couched as if  a testimony.  To seal the deal, so to speak, she had her own special audience attending to cheer her on,  and someone videotaping her for the public which found its way onto youtube.

She was a featured participant in the Gay Pride parade.

It was a propaganda stunt.

Edited September 21, 2017 by cdowis

[jkwilliams]

27 minutes ago, cdowis said:

She was clearly using this as an opportunity to make a declaration, to "come out of the closet".  It was not a testimony but a declaration couched as if  a testimony.  To seal the deal, so to speak, she had her own special audience attending to cheer her on,  and someone videotaping her for the public which found its way onto youtube.

She was a featured participant in the Gay Pride parade.

It was a propaganda stunt.

Is that necessarily an act of apostasy?

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Is that necessarily an act of apostasy?

She said the Church was wrong in its teachings about same sex marriage...can't remember exactly what was said but that was what it boiled down to as she was going to have wonderful life with someone she loved which was what God wanted...that was when she got cut off and not when she announced she was gay.

Her parents worked over her comments with her.  Iirc there were a number of drafts.  She asked for it to be videotaped so she could show her LGBT youth group.

Transcipt of her first interview and speech is here:

http://iliketolookforrainbows.com/2017/05/30/episode-2-savannahs-story-the-transcript/

[Duncan]

In speaking about revelation, I read a quotation from the autobiography of a lady named Carma Cutler. who's husband was Elder Clinton L. Cutler of the 70. She related how when they were mission presidents and Elder Yoshihiko Kikuchi of the 70 was touring their mission and he stopped during a talk he was giving and he said that your President belongs in my quorum. In our Stake my Mom's former Relief Society President (who's single, never been married and about 60ish, she's the Stake Relief Society President now) claims to have received a revelation that one of the sister missionaries was going to be married to her for all eternity and then told the entirety of the Relief Society this news, minus the sisters of course. I just wonder if either of those revelations are within their stewardships? I pretty much know the answer to one but am puzzled about the other

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

We are supposed to meet with the MCC twice a month, on top of being in ward council with them twice a month as well.  Your way seems better, just because it probably leads to less resentment about all the meetings.  Especially considering that those who are attending the ward council meeting are already usually really busy with their callings.

Who is attending your missionary coordination meeting?  It’s supposed to be just the ward mission leader, ward missionaries, and full-time missionaries (if they are able to attend).

 

Handbook 2 5.1.5

Missionary Coordination Meeting

The ward mission leader conducts a missionary coordination meeting with the ward missionaries and the full-time missionaries. The meeting is held regularly. If full-time missionaries serve in several wards, they attend as often as circumstances allow.

In this meeting, the ward mission leader coordinates the work of the full-time missionaries and the ward members. The ward mission leader may also lead discussions on implementing the ward mission plan, scheduling as many teaching appointments for the missionaries as possible, and arranging to have members present as often as possible when investigators are taught.

Edited September 21, 2017 by ksfisher

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I suppose it comes down to intent, and it's difficult for anyone to judge that. 

Not so difficult as you might think. Not in this instance. 

And I wasn't referring <just> to acts of apostasy. My post referred in a generic sense to possible instances of a person trying to hijack the meeting by (a) making contra-doctrinal declarations; (b) expressing antagonism; or (c) making an exit statement. In this instance, I would say at least the first and possibly the second of those actions occurred. 

And as has been pointed out here, this was not <just> the 12-year-old acting alone, but it appears to be a propaganda stunt involving a number of adults as well. 

[JulieM]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not so difficult as you might think. Not in this instance. 

And I wasn't referring <just> to acts of apostasy. My post referred in a generic sense to possible instances of a person trying to hijack the meeting by (a) making contra-doctrinal declarations; (b) expressing antagonism; or (c) making an exit statement. In this instance, I would say at least the first and possibly the second of those actions occurred. 

And as has been pointed out here, this was not <just> the 12-year-old acting alone, but it appears to be a propaganda stunt involving a number of adults as well. 

I don't remember that was ever proven or conclusive was it?

What I remember is this young girl had wanted to do this for some time and her mother tried to dissuade her. When she was determined to do it, her mother helped her edit it and gave suggestions to help.  I do think that friends of this girl did record it and she wanted them to.  I may not have followed it completely through to the end of what came out.

Has it been conclusively proven that it was a planned publicity stunt done by adults rather than the girl's desire to make a statement?

Edited September 21, 2017 by JulieM

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The iPhone comparison is laughable. I wish they'd stop making it. No one really things the rock in a hat acted like the iPhone. All it does it make leaders look like they're grasping for anything that could be considered "reasonable" in today's world.

It is not laughable at all, whether comparing a rock to a light emitting diode (both are solid state devices), or comparing the liahona to a modern gps.  Of course, in Joseph's day no one knew anything about such modern devices, but God is presumably able to provide high technology devices when needed.  Perhaps you prefer magic and miracle rather than a God who uses natural law to accomplish his ends.  The Protestants and Roman Catholics prefer the magic and miracle explanation, which I find laughable.

Quote

But IF Joseph really was reading words directly from a rock like an iPhone then the BoM would be a very tight translation. The room for error, anachronisms, 19th century language, distinctive bible errors unique to Joseph's bible edition, are not explainable. I don't see how one can make an argument for tight translation while also arguing that mistakes are understandable or even expected in the BoM.

You have it backward, HappyJack.  Reading a human-generated Early Modern English translation (from ca 1540) from an LED screen on a solid state device in a hat has nothing to do with "tight" translation.  It merely transmits an already extant translation.  The errors can come in when the reader makes a mistake in reading, or the scribe makes a mistake in hearing or copying -- both types of mistakes being well-known.  Since the English translation is generated by a fallible human ca 1540, there are always going to be errors from his end as well.  No infallible or inerrant Scripture can exist.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Your honor, I direct your attention to People’s exhibit number one.  Clearly you have been in the pot since 1966 if you haven't detected any changes in doctrine (said with love)

Nothing of significance, button.  I suppose that one might consider the lifting of the priesthood ban to be a major change, but I don't see it that way.  I can't exactly say why I don't see it that way, but I do.  

The church has been true for me since 1966, and nothing has changed in that respect.  

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think you have misunderstood me.  I meant receiving revelation for those under my stewardship in regards to their church responsibilities.

Then yes, I did misunderstand. Sorry!

[cdowis]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

She said the Church was wrong in its teachings about same sex marriage...can't remember exactly what was said but that was what it boiled down to as she was going to have wonderful life with someone she loved which was what God wanted...that was when she got cut off and not when she announced she was gay.

Her parents worked over her comments with her.  Iirc there were a number of drafts.  She asked for it to be videotaped so she could show her LGBT youth group.

Transcipt of her first interview and speech is here:

http://iliketolookforrainbows.com/2017/05/30/episode-2-savannahs-story-the-transcript/

"I like to look for rainbows" says it all.  It appears she is certainly getting her wish.

She'll hang out in the church for awhile, trying to infect the youth with her rainbows, until she steps over the line.  She will hold a press conference following the "court of love".
Yawn

Edited September 21, 2017 by cdowis

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not so difficult as you might think. Not in this instance. 

And I wasn't referring <just> to acts of apostasy. My post referred in a generic sense to possible instances of a person trying to hijack the meeting by (a) making contra-doctrinal declarations; (b) expressing antagonism; or (c) making an exit statement. In this instance, I would say at least the first and possibly the second of those actions occurred. 

And as has been pointed out here, this was not <just> the 12-year-old acting alone, but it appears to be a propaganda stunt involving a number of adults as well. 

I love these accusations of a publicity stunt.  The 12 year old did write out what she wanted to say.  And she did ask her friends to tape it so that she could show it to her other friends in the LGBT club.  But she did not have control on how the church leader would freak out, cut the mike and ask her to sit down.  What if she had continued to say that she planned to have a happy and productive life even if she was gay?  That would definitely collapse the entire meeting into a whirlwind of apostasy.  

All kidding aside, I think it was pretty predictable how the church leaders would react given their attitude towards gays and perhaps it was a publicity stunt to record exactly what the reaction would be.  But wouldn't the publicity be the same for both groups?  Didn't the church get to show how it is going to handle anyone else who might think it is a good idea to announce they are gay in Fast and Testimony meeting?  

[Avatar4321]

22 hours ago, rongo said:

Attached are my notes from a recent local conference. In attendance were 2 general authorities, 2 temple presidents, a mission president, an area authority, and local stake presidencies, bishops, elders quorum presidents, and ward mission leaders. I tried pasting it, but you know how this site is sometimes . . . it won't let me paste the text. So, Word doc. it is.

It really was a good conference. I wish these things happened more often.

Enjoy!

Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference.docx

Awesome notes. Very edified by them. I liked in particular:

 

Quote

Fasting is a half-baked effort, when it takes place at all, and then only on Fast Sunday. Have people with problems fasted weekly? Twice a week? No one will die from that. How many have tried it to overcome a scourge and problem? Have they involved family and loved ones in fasting? Do they want to overcome their problems as badly as the sons of Mosiah wanted to repent? Have they done what they did to access such spiritual power (Alma 17)?

I'll have to think on that.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

I love these accusations of a publicity stunt.  The 12 year old did write out what she wanted to say.  And she did ask her friends to tape it so that she could show it to her other friends in the LGBT club.  But she did not have control on how the church leader would freak out, cut the mike and ask her to sit down.  What if she had continued to say that she planned to have a happy and productive life even if she was gay?  That would definitely collapse the entire meeting into a whirlwind of apostasy.  

All kidding aside, I think it was pretty predictable how the church leaders would react given their attitude towards gays and perhaps it was a publicity stunt to record exactly what the reaction would be.  But wouldn't the publicity be the same for both groups?  Didn't the church get to show how it is going to handle anyone else who might think it is a good idea to announce they are gay in Fast and Testimony meeting?  

Not a publicity stunt, a propaganda  stunt. 

And I'm pretty sure the Church leaders and a majority of faithful members would prefer that people don't hijack fast and testimony meeting to declare their opposition to Church teachings. 

You have virtually unlimited fora on the outside. Leave us in peace to preserve our worship services as a sanctuary. 

Edited September 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Avatar4321]

20 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks for the notes.   Although after reviewing them I'd say, What a bunch of garbage!

 

hah...just kidding.  Seriously thanks.

SOme obervs:

According to this can women not receive revelation for others?  Maybe just their dependent children? 

Amen. Think many bishops are dumb.  They need to let go some and let others lead and lessen their own burden.

That's a sad and narrow view.  Hopefully the survey someone mentioned around here brings them a better perspective of others.

oooh...Sounds like an effort to get the leaders to snuff out woofs in their wards and stakes.  Witch huntin'?  I hope that doesnt' happen.

How can we take their comments seriously after this?  The Church is not in any way anti-gay, but it is opposed to gay marriage?  Isn't that self-contradicting? 

There could be more, but I might go on forever.  Thanks for bringing me in.

Witch hunting? Just from hanging around here it's obvious there are a number of dissenters in the Church that need to either come back or cut off. It would be absolutely foolish to pretend as though its not a problem. Especially when you have a responsibility to lead the flock.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

I don't remember that was ever proven or conclusive was it?

What I remember is this young girl had wanted to do this for some time and her mother tried to dissuade her. When she was determined to do it, her mother helped her edit it and gave suggestions to help.  I do think that friends of this girl did record it and she wanted them to.  I may not have followed it completely through to the end of what came out.

Has it been conclusively proven that it was a planned publicity stunt done by adults rather than the girl's desire to make a statement?

I said it <appears> to be that. 

[california boy]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not a publicity stunt, a propaganda  stunt. 

And I'm pretty sure the Church leaders would prefer that people don't hijack fast and testimony meeting to declare their opposition to Church teachings. 

You have virtually unlimited fora on the outside. Leave us in peace to preserve our worship services as a sanctuary. 

Can you honestly say this is the first time you have heard or experienced someone hijacking a Fast and Testimony meeting?

I don't support what the 12 year old did.  I think it was inappropriate for a Fast and Testimony meeting.  But I also don't support people dumping all over her and claiming that they know the motives for what she did and they know she was involved in some master plot to embarrass the church.  The church seems to do a pretty good job of doing that all by themselves.  Nor do I support the idea that what this 12 year old girl was such an act of apostasy she should be demeaned further by those who were not there and don't know anything about her.  You have castigated her long enough.  It is not some gay masterplan to take over the Mormon church.  No one is sending in 12 year olds to infuse the youth with rainbows.  She is 12 years old for heavens sake.  Take a breath for just one second and ponder for a moment what Christ might do.  How He would treat this young girl.  

And furthermore,  I had nothing to do with it.  So I have no idea what you are talking about when you say I have virtually unlimited fora on the outside.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Can you honestly say this is the first time you have heard or experienced someone hijacking a Fast and Testimony meeting?

I don't support what the 12 year old did.  I think it was inappropriate for a Fast and Testimony meeting.  But I also don't support people dumping all over her and claiming that they know the motives for what she did and they know she was involved in some master plot to embarrass the church.  The church seems to do a pretty good job of doing that all by themselves.  Nor do I support the idea that what this 12 year old girl was such an act of apostasy she should be demeaned further by those who were not there and don't know anything about her.  You have castigated her long enough.  It is not some gay masterplan to take over the Mormon church.  No one is sending in 12 year olds to infuse the youth with rainbows.  She is 12 years old for heavens sake.  Take a breath for just one second and ponder for a moment what Christ might do.  How He would treat this young girl.  

And furthermore,  I had nothing to do with it.  So I have no idea what you are talking about when you say I have virtually unlimited fora on the outside.

No, this is not the first time I've heard of someone using testimony meeting to publicly oppose the Church. I recall some guy gave an exit speech a few years ago and a video of it was posted on YouTube. It seems to me it happens rarely; my desire would be it not happen at all. 

And I've not seen the girl castigated or persecuted. If anything she has been made a hero of in some quarters. 

For my part, I have only expressed disapproval of the act -- as you yourself, to your credit, did here. 

[Avatar4321]

18 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for calling this to our attention, a very sad response.  I would say the Seventy's approach is actually counter to what I would recommend doing and the council from Elder Ballard when he said that gone are the days when you can bear a testimony and dismiss the questions.  It sounds to me like that's what this Seventy is trying to do, and I would say that this doesn't work.  I would even venture to say that this "sure foundation" in her father is likely not going to last or might even be a facade because the daughter is too scared to share her true feelings with Dad because of his dogmatic approach to doubt and faith questions.  

This just reinforces the evidence that I've seen that many church leaders have no clue how to handle or help people who go through a crisis of faith.  Very disappointing... 

So him discussion her questions with her and testifying was dismissing in the questions?

Edited September 21, 2017 by Avatar4321

[Avatar4321]

18 hours ago, ALarson said:

Yes, that was very disappointing for me to read.  IMO, it's horrible advice for how to deal with anyone experiencing doubts or having questions.  

Again, discussing the concerns is horrible advice?

 

What would be good advice then? Saying "Give into your doubts. Your anger, your hatred and your journey to the dark side will be complete"?

[Avatar4321]

18 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think pretty much everything you've listed has evolved to some extent in the last century, but some more than others, especially the wink, wink, nudge, nudge doctrine, that one has changed drastically!  

No it hasnt

[Rain]

On 9/20/2017 at 9:50 AM, bluebell said:

We have ward council every other week and the are usually around 75 minutes long, most of it taken up by the missionaries. I don’t know how it would be possible to keep it to 20 minutes!

 

On 9/20/2017 at 10:54 AM, bluebell said:

It doesn't really bother me, but it does make me wonder, what's the point of having missionary correlation meeting and why am i expected to go to it as well as ward council, when we are covering everything in the one meeting?  

I may not get through the whole thread this morning so someone may have already talked abut it after the point I stopped to answer. 

When I was ward missionary and my husband was leader, I would attend ward council when he was out of the country. I noticed the same thing and had the same thoughts. So I talked with the missionaries about what was going on. They had been going to every council in every area that they could their whole mission.  I got the impression that at some point a mission president had directed them to go.

I talked with my husband, looked ward council up in the CHI and then we talked with the sisters again. 

This time we explained what missionary correlation (edit: coordination)  meeting was and that it wasn't necessary to repeat everything said there in ward council. We also explained that this was part of the responsibility of the ward mission leader.

And last the handbook says that the missionaries are supposed to come as invited by the bishop, not as a definite responsibility. We didn't want them to get stuck between the mission president and the ward and the bishop so we made sure everyone was good with it all and for the most part the missionaries stopped coming - it was just redundent. I don't know what is happening now.  

I think that may have all got started because some ward missionary leaders were not doing their calling - having correlation meeting, keeping up to date on the work and attending ward council. If he is doing his calling their will rarely be a time when the missionaries need o be at council.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Rain

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

Awesome notes. Very edified by them. I liked in particular:

 

I'll have to think on that.

I think these kinds of fasts were what Elder McConkie spoke out against at BYU in the early 1980's. To me, once a month is enough