Scott Lloyd Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 8 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said: I'll just leave this here, but my hope is that these quotes are still applicable in the church. The problem is when people begin to promulgate ideas in direct conflict with the teachings of the Church and its leaders. Elder Ballard spoke of this in his general conference address.
Jeanne Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 21 minutes ago, Rain said: As a parent who was devastated and wracked with pain I can tell you that I FAR prefer having the truth out now than it was before when I suspected it. I had hope for some things till a certain point and it was very hard when I knew those things wouldn't happen, but far more pain came from how my child treated me through all of this than the choices he finally was letting me know about. I already KNEW something was wrong. Everyone around me was saying that things were ok, but I KNEW they were not. In many ways it was a huge relief that he was finally being honest with me, at least to some extent. I now have a better relationship with him than I have had since he was a child. My BIL recently wrote an email to my husband. He commented that it might now be good for me to know because I might be sensitive to his concerns. But again, we have known about it for over a decade and well, I have everyone here and other places to show me that not everything is rosie. I will always hope they come back. The hurt relationships are not because of both sides being honest. The hurt comes from one or the other or both sides treating the other badly when it happens. Through this process I have learned far more about trust in Heavenly Father than at any other time in my life. It has help me to grow closer to Him. I recognize that my loved ones were first God's children and He can see his plan for them much better than I can. There are days I have had doubts as well. Things in this church are not always easy. I don't mean that the work is not easy. I mean that some issues are difficult to deal with. Last year I was really thinking about this. I finally prayed. I told Him, I don't know how to deal with this or that. I was struggling with this other thing. Then I asked, "Is this [church] where I should be?" I too, in many ways, felt middle way and it is not comfortable. It takes energy to be there. When I asked, and was willing to act on the answer the peace just surrounded me. It may be a question you want to ask Him. I respect this post very much...your feelings..what you have been through and your total and fair honesty.
JLHPROF Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 14 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said: I'll just leave this here, but my hope is that these quotes are still applicable in the church. They are. People in the Church can believe whatever they like. They just can't teach or advocate whatever they like. The Church is not their personal soapbox. 4
Scott Lloyd Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 Quote “I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.” — Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:340 I've seen this quote more than once, and I have found it useful to view it in context. Here's a more contextual rendition of it: Quote In April 1843, Pelatiah Brown sought to silence certain critics of the LDS Church by stretching and twisting the meaning of passages from the book of Revelation to make his point. After Brother Brown had been disciplined for doing so, Joseph Smith said: “I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latterday Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.” So here we have a man who was not opposing the Church and its leaders. His intent was just the opposite, in fact: to refute those who were doing so. Therefore, it is misleading and inaccurate -- perhaps disingenuous -- to use it in an effort to excuse or sustain those who are thus opposing the Church. Furthermore, his error was not that he took it into his heart to contend against the leaders of the Church; he simply erred in his interpretation of certain Biblical passages, a hazard to which we all are no doubt prone at one time or another. In short, he made an honest mistake. I see a fundamental difference between doing that and aggressively opposing the Church and its leaders by promulgating tenets and ideas and beliefs that are altogether out of harmony with the Church and its leaders (see my previous post). 3
Bobbieaware Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 (edited) 26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: They are. People in the Church can believe whatever they like. They just can't teach or advocate whatever they like. The Church is not their personal soapbox. ... and one can disbelieve the fundamental teachings of the Church as long as he or she is able to avoid ever having to participate in a temple recommend interview. But I suppose one could simply lie in the temple recommend interview and still be able to enter the temple and participate in the ordinances. So as long as a heretic or apostate has no qualms about lying to the Church leaders they can be full participants in the Church and, at least outwardly, appear to be numbered among the full-fledged true believers. Edited October 6, 2017 by Bobbieaware
Mystery Meat Posted October 6, 2017 Author Posted October 6, 2017 40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Firstly, if you have been reading about this for that long, you should know that the author of Luke is not quoting Jesus, the author of Luke lived 2-3 generations after Jesus, and has a particular view that is unique to Luke with respect to elements of the story of Jesus that this author wants to emphasize for theological purposes. Similar verses are in Matthew 10:34-36. Interesting that these verses are not in Mark the first gospel narrative that Luke and Matthew copy most of their content from. So this verse likely was a part of Q source or Luke copies Matthew would be my guess, I don't have my study guides with me, but I'll try and remember to look up some commentary on this and see what the scholars think as for the innovation of these passages. I would also consider not only the context and origins of this passage, but also try to square it with other messages from other books. Like this passage in Mark 3:24-25. FIRSTLY, not all scholars agree that Luke did not write the third gospel and the book of Acts. You present this as if it is cold, hard fact. At best it is speculation that no one can substantiate. As far as I remember, the argument is that Luke's gospel differed from Paul's Christianity in some ways, Luke was a student of Paul, and therefore, Luke could not have written it. My general sense of the issue is that Luke is considered to be the author by most. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 11 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: ... and one can disbelieve the fundamental teachings of the Church as long as he or she is able to avoid ever having to participate in a temple recommend interview. But I suppose one could simply lie in the temple recommend interview and still be able to enter the temple and participate in the ordinances. So as long as a heretic or apostate has no qualms about lying to the Church leaders they can be full participants in the Church and, at least outwardly, appear to be numbered among the full-fledged true believers. Dehlin, for a while -- I don't know if he is still doing it -- was specializing in telling people how they can contrive their own definitions so as to falsely answer the temple recommend interview questions while kidding themselves that they weren't really lying. So yeah, for one who truly desires to enter the temple under false pretenses, it can be done, and fairly easily in most cases. I would not want to be in the position of such a person, though, now or in the eternities. Or a person can borrow someone else's non-transferable temple recommend. I've heard of this happening too. In such an instance, the temple recommend ought to be revoked and both the one who did the lending and, if applicable, the one who did the borrowing, be subject to Church discipline.
Button Gwinnett Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 (edited) 45 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: They are. People in the Church can believe whatever they like. They just can't teach or advocate whatever they like. The Church is not their personal soapbox. I agree church services are not the place to hang out the churches dirty laundry nor am I advocating middleway mormons use church meetings to do so. But should members face church discipline for there online activities? This may not be a popular opinion but to me that borders on Orwellianism and yet I am personally aware of several members who have faced discipline due to their online activity. Edited October 6, 2017 by Button Gwinnett
Button Gwinnett Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Dehlin, for a while -- I don't know if he is still doing it -- was specializing in telling people how they can contrive their own definitions so as to falsely answer the temple recommend interview questions while kidding themselves that they weren't really lying. So yeah, for one who truly desires to enter the temple under false pretenses, it can be done, and fairly easily in most cases. I would not want to be in the position of such a person, though, now or in the eternities. Or a person can borrow someone else's non-transferable temple recommend. I've heard of this happening too. In such an instance, the temple recommend ought to be revoked and both the one who did the lending and, if applicable, the one who did the borrowing, be subject to Church discipline. Anyone who has to nuance or massage the answers to their Recommend interview shouldn't get a recommend. That said there is so much cultural pressure to have one, say to attend your child's wedding, that many member resort to lying rather than face the cultural pressure. My best friend confessed to me several years ago that this is what he did. He has since left the church and at the time was struggling to maintain belief. When his son got married he was not a believer but lied his way through so that he could attend his sons wedding. I have no doubt that this is a common phenomenon.
Bobbieaware Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Dehlin, for a while -- I don't know if he is still doing it -- was specializing in telling people how they can contrive their own definitions so as to falsely answer the temple recommend interview questions while kidding themselves that they weren't really lying. So yeah, for one who truly desires to enter the temple under false pretenses, it can be done, and fairly easily in most cases. I would not want to be in the position of such a person, though, now or in the eternities. Or a person can borrow someone else's non-transferable temple recommend. I've heard of this happening too. In such an instance, the temple recommend ought to be revoked and both the one who did the lending and, if applicable, the one who did the borrowing, be subject to Church discipline. What you describe is similar to how I've heard sociopaths coach themselves to beat polygraph tests and get away with crimes they've committed . They do some sort of mental exercise wherein they perform some kind of repetitious mind manipulation until they have thoroughly convinced themselves that the pertinent lies are true and the true facts are a pack of lies (I guess you have to be a sociopath or psychopath understand how this works) and then you pass the lie detector test with flying colors. And if what you say about Dehlin's despicable coaching is true, he is a diabolical manipulator. Edited October 7, 2017 by Bobbieaware 1
hope_for_things Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 53 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: FIRSTLY, not all scholars agree that Luke did not write the third gospel and the book of Acts. You present this as if it is cold, hard fact. At best it is speculation that no one can substantiate. As far as I remember, the argument is that Luke's gospel differed from Paul's Christianity in some ways, Luke was a student of Paul, and therefore, Luke could not have written it. My general sense of the issue is that Luke is considered to be the author by most. Most scholars agree that the author of Luke and Acts is the same person. The tradition that Luke was a contemporary of Paul developed in the second century, but does not stand up to scrutiny and for the past century most scholars have dated Luke and Acts to the 80-90 C.E. timeframe although in most recent years some scholars have argued for a later dating in the first two decades of the early second century, and some of what I've read along those lines make a persuasive case for that dating. Your statement that it's just speculation that no one can substantiate is precisely what the traditionalists argue for, but it isn't logical as the scholarship on these datings are not based on speculation, but rather they are based on evidence.
jkwilliams Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 17 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: What you describe is similar to how I've heard sociopaths coach themselves to beat polygraph tests and get away with crimes they've committed . They do some sort of mental exercise wherein they perform some kind of repetitious mind manipulation until they have thoroughly convinced themselves that the pertinent lies are true and the truth facts are a pack of lies (I guess you have to be a sociopath or psychopath understand how this works) and then you pass the lie detector test with flying colors. And if what you say about Dehlin's despicable coaching is true, he is a diabolical manipulator. I was under a lot of pressure to get a temple recommend so I could attend my daughter’s wedding. I struggled over it but ultimately decided I couldn’t lie and say I believed what I don’t believe. But people fudge the temple recommend questions all the time. That doesn’t make them sociopaths or diabolical, just people faced with a difficult choice who chose differently than you or I would. 1
bluebell Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Firstly, if you have been reading about this for that long, you should know that the author of Luke is not quoting Jesus, the author of Luke lived 2-3 generations after Jesus, and has a particular view that is unique to Luke with respect to elements of the story of Jesus that this author wants to emphasize for theological purposes. Similar verses are in Matthew 10:34-36. Isn't it more accurate to say that we don't know if he is quoted Jesus or not, since we have no idea what his source material is? Quote Interesting that these verses are not in Mark the first gospel narrative that Luke and Matthew copy most of their content from. So this verse likely was a part of Q source or Luke copies Matthew would be my guess, I don't have my study guides with me, but I'll try and remember to look up some commentary on this and see what the scholars think as for the innovation of these passages. I thought some bible scholars believed that Q was actually an earlier source than Mark? I look forward to hearing from your commentaries when you get the chance. Quote I would also consider not only the context and origins of this passage, but also try to square it with other messages from other books. Like this passage in Mark 3:24-25. So if Jesus is come to divide families and houses, then is he also causing these houses to not stand? I think this is interesting. We know that the Jewish expectations for a Messiah figure was that he would come and save them from political bondage and create peace, but there were also the apocalyptic messages mixed in with the coming of the messiah. This is all part of the NT messages and there are different perspectives by different authors. That makes sense to me. The Gospel probably does cause some homes to fall. Besides that, the concept being taught in Luke 12 rings true to me as well- When someone tells someone else that what they believe or do is wrong (it does not matter what the subject matter is) it usually causes division. People do not like to be told they are wrong. Neither do they like people to do or believe things they don't agree with. The Gospel is all about telling people they need to repent and change-it only makes sense that something so focused repentance would cause division, especially amid those who don't believe they need to repent. The scriptures teach that the wicked take the truth to be hard, which is The justice of God divides the wicked from the righteous. Division is an obvious consequence of the Plan of Salvation and agency, both of which comprise the Gospel. 4
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: I was under a lot of pressure to get a temple recommend so I could attend my daughter’s wedding. I struggled over it but ultimately decided I couldn’t lie and say I believed what I don’t believe. But people fudge the temple recommend questions all the time. That doesn’t make them sociopaths or diabolical, just people faced with a difficult choice who chose differently than you or I would. It's the difference between being truthful and untruthful, simply stated. And I read Bobbieaware as applying the term "diabolical" to Dehlin, not necessarily his misguided followers.
jkwilliams Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: It's the difference between being truthful and untruthful, simply stated. And I read Bobbieaware as applying the term "diabolical" to Dehlin, not necessarily his misguided followers. Of course, it's untruthful. But I have a hard time seeing people in those circumstances as akin to sociopaths. That's just silly hyperbole. 1
CV75 Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 2 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said: I agree church services are not the place to hang out the churches dirty laundry nor am I advocating middleway mormons use church meetings to do so. But should members face church discipline for there online activities? This may not be a popular opinion but to me that borders on Orwellianism and yet I am personally aware of several members who have faced discipline due to their online activity. It seems to me that online activity is as valid as any other form of written communication that is shared with the public or in public, even when anonymous. Can you share some examples of the content of the online communication?Were they confessions of serous moral transgressions, abusive to spouse or children, or qualifying as apostate in any sense?
Calm Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 6 hours ago, bluebell said: I think it just depends (and i think that the church has shown that it's open to knowing what people are thinking, just in the right setting and expressed in what it considers appropriate ways). In a classroom, are teachers typically open to questions and comments? You bet! Are they open to a class member standing up and telling the rest of the class that the teacher is wrong and then trying to teach the class themselves? Nope. Just because it is a teaching church does not mean that members are allowed to publicly espouse whatever they want. If nothing else, the church is a church of order. Most teaching organizations would stop someone they believed were teaching incorrectly...for example, a teaching hospital would likely fire someone who taught surgery didnt require a sterile environment. 3
Tacenda Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 41 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Of course, it's untruthful. But I have a hard time seeing people in those circumstances as akin to sociopaths. That's just silly hyperbole. It's terrible that family is put into that circumstance. I'm sure they envisioned being there to witness their child's wedding and to have the church interfere especially when Joseph Smith himself said a wedding should be totally public.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 2 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said: I agree church services are not the place to hang out the churches dirty laundry nor am I advocating middleway mormons use church meetings to do so. But should members face church discipline for there online activities? This may not be a popular opinion but to me that borders on Orwellianism and yet I am personally aware of several members who have faced discipline due to their online activity. I could agree about the Orwellianism if it were a matter of tapping telephone conversations or planting listening devices in homes or using undercover operatives to lure people into making statements. But posting something on the Internet is in effect publishing it to the world as surely as if you used a printing press to run off several hundred thousand copies of a thing and handed it out on the street or sold it in bookstores. The hazard that someone might see the thing you posted whom you would prefer didn’t see it is in effect the price you pay for this privilege. 1
jkwilliams Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 7 minutes ago, Tacenda said: It's terrible that family is put into that circumstance. I'm sure they envisioned being there to witness their child's wedding and to have the church interfere especially when Joseph Smith himself said a wedding should be totally public. It's not a fun situation, as I know from personal experience. But this labeling of people as sociopaths is just ridiculous and unhelpful. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 53 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Of course, it's untruthful. But I have a hard time seeing people in those circumstances as akin to sociopaths. That's just silly hyperbole. I never used the word sociopaths. Trespassing would be closer to what I would call lying or committing fraud to enter a private facility one is not eligible to enter.
jkwilliams Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I never used the word sociopaths. Trespassing would be closer to what I would call lying or committing fraud to enter a private facility one is not eligible to enter. I didn't say you did. You suggested that "diabolical" was aimed at John Dehlin, which is fair enough (but also hyperbole), but the word "sociopath" was used to describe people who, for family reasons, lie to get a temple recommend. Again, that's ridiculous.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I didn't say you did. You suggested that "diabolical" was aimed at John Dehlin, which is fair enough (but also hyperbole), but the word "sociopath" was used to describe people who, for family reasons, lie to get a temple recommend. Again, that's ridiculous. And again, I didn’t use that word. One can agree that a thing is wrong without assenting to the characterization that has been applied to it. Edited October 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: And again, I didn’t use that word. And again, I never said you did.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: And again, I never said you did. Good. If this dead horse had any living daylights left, you surely would have beaten them out of it by now.
Recommended Posts