clarkgoble Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 2 hours ago, rockpond said: Even if you don't believe the experience of my friend, could we agree that taking away a temple recommend for writing a counter-point to a conference address seems antithetical to the idea that our leaders are fallible? Again, without knowing what the content is, it's hard to say. Consider someone writing a counterpoint to Elder Uchtdorf's talk on Grace saying that Grace only applies to those who have a personal Snuffer like vision of Christ and Uchtdorf is plain wrong on grace. I think we'd agree that might be reason for someone to be at least concerned even if you think ultimately nothing should be done. So without knowing the content of what is said it's impossible to really say much. 17 minutes ago, smac97 said: I think a bishop or a stake president can discern when an individual is equivocating or otherwise using deceit in a TR interview. That being the case, further inquiry and discussion would not only be appropriate, but imperative. I think they can but I've seen enough people bragging about lying in such contexts that I frequently wonder if they do. That said, my parents were at the Salt Lake Temple waiting for the endowment to start. The person at the alter said the spirit told them there was someone there who shouldn't be there. They waited and no one left. So they repeated it. This happened four times until finally someone left and they started the endowment. Now perhaps the person in charge of that session knew someone who shouldn't be there. Or perhaps it was the spirit. But such things do happen. Although judging by the movies on the internet, some people still get through. Inspiration can happen but doesn't always happen. The leaders in question have to be listening. On the other hand I'm sure counterfeits have also happened where people because they don't like or trust someone refuse them when they shouldn't.
smac97 Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, rockpond said: To be clear, cause I think I have have been misunderstood: I think the vast majority of members will profess a belief that our leaders are fallible. And not only profess it, but well and truly mean it. It does not follow, however, that members are obligated to publicly itemize the specific flaws and errors of the General Authorities. Quote And that is the doctrinal position of the church. My point is that in practice, we aren't ever allowed to speak of something taught by a church leader as if it might be an error. I'm not sure about that. I think we can do that in the appropriate time, place and manner. I'm tempted to provide a link to Elder Oaks 1987 Ensign article, "Criticism." It it just so very relevant to online discussions these days. Quote The example of this is my friend who spoke out against what he felt were false teachings of a GA and lost his recommend because of it. The wrong time, place and manner, it seems. Quote Even if you don't believe the experience of my friend, could we agree that taking away a temple recommend for writing a counter-point to a conference address seems antithetical to the idea that our leaders are fallible? Well, no. Publicly speaking in opposition to the General Authorities is a serious matter. Do you agree? Can you also agree that such opposition might, in some circumstances, warrant some measure of discipline (such as the removal of a temple recommend)? If so, then what we're left with is . . . a judgment call. Not a per se error. A judgment call. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 19, 2018 by smac97 1
rockpond Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: Okay. This sounds like a rejection of historicity altogether, rather than incidental disputes of specific details and characterizations. I don't think it does. Words must have a commonly-understood meaning in order to have utility. Equivocation can be a form of dishonesty, after all. And a bishop could be derelict in his responsibilities as a judge in Israel if he ignored equivocation or other Dehlin-esque efforts to mislead/deceive. And then there is the spirit of the thing. If a person in a TR interview says to his bishop "Well, I don't drink alcohol or use tobacco or drink coffee or tea. However, my interpretation of the Word of Wisdom allows me to smoke marijuana, dabble with Percocet, and drop acid now and again. None of these is prohibited in the text of the Word of Wisdom, so in answer to your question, yes, I keep the Word of Wisdom," how do you think the bishop should proceed? I invite you to reconsider this statement. I have a hard time believing you can stand by it. How can you possibly affirm a statement when you deny the necessity of that statement to have meaning? Imagine you are a litigant in a lawsuit about a fistfight you had with your neighbor, Joe. Your neighbor sues you, and at the trial his attorney asks the following: Attorney: So tell us a bit about the actual fistfight. Where did it take place? Rockpond: On my driveway. Attorney: And when? Rockpond: On July 2, 2017, at about 3:00 p.m. Attorney: What was the fight about? Rockpond: Joe came over and yelled that my dog had bitten his daughter earlier in the day, then he started the fight. Attorney: What do you mean, "he started the fight?" Rockpond: It doesn't matter what I believe it means. Attorney: Um, what? You just said that Joe "started the fight." What does that mean? Rockpond: You're missing the point. Attorney: Well, no, I'm not. This lawsuit is about a physical altercation between you and Joe. You are claiming that Joe "started the fight." We need to understand what that means. Rockpond: No, we don't. Words need to have meaning in order to convey information. Refusal to explain the meaning of a response to a question does not "miss the point," either in court or in a TR interview. The entire point of both events is to gather information and discern truth. The TR questions are not some rote incantation that a bishop mindlessly utters. If that were the case, the Church could simply have people fill out a form online. There would be no need for an interview. To be sure, there are times when a bishop can exceed the appropriate scope of inquiry in a TR interview. But just as a bishop can construe that scope too broadly, I think you may be construing it too narrowly. The role of bishops as "judges in Israel" is not just flowery prose. It's not just an honorary title. It's supposed to mean something. I agree. But we aren't talking about added questions. We are talking about responses to the approved TR questions. I have nothing to say regarding your friend. I'm speaking generally, not specifically. I think a bishop or a stake president can discern when an individual is equivocating or otherwise using deceit in a TR interview. That being the case, further inquiry and discussion would not only be appropriate, but imperative. Thanks, -Smac Yes, words need to have meaning. And when I said my definition of restoration doesn’t matter, I meant that in the context of this discussion. Not in my interview. I agree that the TR questions are not a rote incantation. Nor are they a trial of the individual. Technically, the handbook doesn’t actually require any specific answers. Signing of the recommend is left to the discernment of three individuals. But setting that aside and assuming there are “correct” answers as I think most would assume... One must have a testimony of the restoration. What exactly does it mean to “have a testimony of the restoration”? I was asked this by an interviewee. We could ask that among members and get a wide range of answers. So, everyone who answers that question could be answering in slightly different ways. As for Book of Mormon historicity, there is no question pertaining to that. The restoration still exists and is still miraculous if the Book of Mormon peoples never existed in the forms described. When you interview someone for a temple recommend you are standing in for the Lord. It’s a heavy responsibility and I always tried to take it on in a way that would please Him. I still carry that feeling with me now.
rockpond Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 1 minute ago, smac97 said: And not only profess it, but well and truly mean it. It does not follow, however, that members are obligated to publicly itemize the specific flaws and errors of the General Authorities. I'm not sure about that. I think we can do that in the appropriate time, place and manner. I'm tempted to provide a link to Elder Oaks 1987 Ensign article, "Criticism." It it just so very relevant to online discussions these days. The wrong time, place and manner, it seems. Well, no. Publicly speaking in opposition to the General Authorities is a serious matter. Do you agree? Can you also agree that such opposition might, in some circumstances, warrant some measure of discipline (such as the removal of a temple recommend)? If so, then what we're left with is . . . a judgment call. Thanks, -Smac You are speaking to my original point here. We acknowledge fallibility of our leaders but not ever being able to identify something that could be an error makes our practice one of presumed infallibility. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted January 19, 2018 Author Posted January 19, 2018 On 1/16/2018 at 9:48 AM, Duncan said: I know all of that but if people don't like their leaders, they split and what is padawan? is that some kind of noodle or something? In contrast to a Jedi Master, I lay claim to neither any special knowledge nor power, nor to any sources thereof not available to any others of God's children, but, in answer to your question: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Padawan
why me Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) Of course a younger looking face would have been better in the leadership. I think that some people may get tired of looking at older faces at conference. Sometimes a church just needs to freshen up a bit and get young energy involved at the top. But since all must depend who is next in line of the twelve, even young faces would become old faces by the time they reach number one in the twelve line. That being said, pope francis is an old guy and he is certianly showing his age these days. This is the risk when people well beyond their 60s take charge. Edited January 19, 2018 by why me
The Nehor Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, why me said: Of course a younger looking face would have been better in the leadership. I think that some people may get tired of looking at older faces at conference. Sometimes a church just needs to freshen up a bit and get young energy involved at the top. But since all must depend who is next in line of the twelve, even young faces would become old faces by the time they reach number one in the twelve line. That being said, pope francis is an old guy and he is certianly showing his age these days. This is the risk when people well beyond their 60s take charge. If older faces bother you may I suggest just listening to the audio? 4
CMZ Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 1 hour ago, rockpond said: You are speaking to my original point here. We acknowledge fallibility of our leaders but not ever being able to identify something that could be an error makes our practice one of presumed infallibility. So no member has ever pointed out an error a leader has made? Seems to me it happens quite a bit. With all that has been done in that regard it would be unwise to keep bringing things up, but two instances come to mind that might be okay to post here: A couple years ago a Seventy (David Evans) was giving a prayer in a conference session and said, "That our strength may be faithened," rather than, "That our faith may be strengthened." This ended up getting mentioned all ever (winning mentions such as "best prayer gaffe ever") and even turned into a meme: I had also heard about Joseph Fielding Smith saying man would never make it to the moon and when they did make it to the moon and he was asked about it he said, "I guess I was wrong." 1
Calm Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 4 hours ago, rockpond said: As for Book of Mormon historicity, there is no question pertaining to that. The restoration still exists and is still miraculous if the Book of Mormon peoples never existed in the forms described. I am curious as to what you see is being restored once restoration of ancient plates given to JS is off the table...serious question, not meant to be confrontative. 1
Calm Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) 13 hours ago, CMZ said: So no member has ever pointed out an error a leader has made? Seems to me it happens quite a bit. With all that has been done in that regard it would be unwise to keep bringing things up, but two instances come to mind that might be okay to post here: A couple years ago a Seventy (David Evans) was giving a prayer in a conference session and said, "That our strength may be faithened," rather than, "That our faith may be strengthened." This ended up getting mentioned all ever (winning mentions such as "best prayer gaffe ever") and even turned into a meme: I had also heard about Joseph Fielding Smith saying man would never make it to the moon and when they did make it to the moon and he was asked about it he said, "I guess I was wrong." The whole "ponderize" episode. Brother Durrant issued a public apology as well: http://universe.byu.edu/2015/10/07/general-authority-apologizes-for-ponderize-website/ Edited January 19, 2018 by Calm
why me Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 3 hours ago, The Nehor said: If older faces bother you may I suggest just listening to the audio? It is not so much that they bother me. But they do send a message to the younger crowd: no change. Joseph Smith was a quite a young leader when he led the church: full of energy and movement. It would be nice to see a younger face full of energy and movement.
Kenngo1969 Posted January 19, 2018 Author Posted January 19, 2018 Quote Not often but over the years some sources have suggested that the Brethren are out of touch in their declarations, that they don’t know the issues, that some of their policies and practices are out-of-date, not relevant to our times. As the least of those who have been sustained by you to witness the guidance of this Church firsthand, I say with all the fervor of my soul that never in my personal or professional life have I ever associated with any group who are so in touch, who know so profoundly the issues facing us, who look so deeply into the old, stay so open to the new, and weigh so carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully everything in between. I testify that the grasp this body of men and women have of moral and societal issues exceeds that of any think tank or brain trust of comparable endeavor of which I know anywhere on the earth. I bear personal witness of how thoroughly good they are, of how hard they work, and how humbly they live. It is no trivial matter for this Church to declare to the world prophecy, seership, and revelation, but we do declare it. It is true light shining in a dark world, and it shines from these proceedings. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland (October 2006) "Prophets in the Land Again," Address given at the 176th Semiannual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Salt Lake City UT accessed on line at the following address on January 9, 2018: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/prophets-in-the-land-again?lang=eng. 4
rockpond Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 7 hours ago, CMZ said: So no member has ever pointed out an error a leader has made? Seems to me it happens quite a bit. With all that has been done in that regard it would be unwise to keep bringing things up, but two instances come to mind that might be okay to post here: A couple years ago a Seventy (David Evans) was giving a prayer in a conference session and said, "That our strength may be faithened," rather than, "That our faith may be strengthened." This ended up getting mentioned all ever (winning mentions such as "best prayer gaffe ever") and even turned into a meme: I had also heard about Joseph Fielding Smith saying man would never make it to the moon and when they did make it to the moon and he was asked about it he said, "I guess I was wrong." 1. Seriously, stumbling over a phrase is an error you are identifying? 2. Yes, and when that is brought up by people to identify prophetic fallibility, watch what happens.
rockpond Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 4 hours ago, Calm said: The whole "ponderize" episode. Elder Durrant issued a public apology as well: http://universe.byu.edu/2015/10/07/general-authority-apologizes-for-ponderize-website/ Yes, we can identify a mistake made by a general authority’s son that he failed to stop. I guess I should have clarified that I was speaking of errors in doctrines, not gaffes and thoughtless things done by their kids.
rongo Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 I agree with several things smac said re: asking follow-up questions about TR items doesn't constitute adding additional questions. It is part of the discernment, and especially when there is cause or reason to probe deeper (such as in the case being discussed, where the person had blogged publicly criticizing a conference talk). In practice, where there are no concerns, we usually just take the yes/no responses at face value. Where there are concerns, it is not adding questions to ask people to clarify and be more specific. Sometimes the Spirit does prompt us to ask questions, even questions outside of the TR questions. I don't think pleading the 5th and refusing to answer on grounds that the question was outside of the purview of the interviewer will get one far in a TR interview . . . Another thought I have in the specific case being discussed is this: I don't think it would be amiss to ask the person if he thinks his blog constituted "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed." That is also not one of the TR questions, but it certainly has a bearing on temple worthiness if there are known concerns. I don't think asking him to explain why he feels his blog does or does not pertain to this is amiss. This seems to have been the sticking point between him and the stake president, and the point upon which regaining his recommend rests. At the end of the day, you have to meet the requirements of *your* particular gatekeepers (leader roulette). In my experience, the Brethren upon appeal are almost always going to side with the local leaders unless there is gross incompetence or malfeasance. 1
rockpond Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, rongo said: I agree with several things smac said re: asking follow-up questions about TR items doesn't constitute adding additional questions. It is part of the discernment, and especially when there is cause or reason to probe deeper (such as in the case being discussed, where the person had blogged publicly criticizing a conference talk). In practice, where there are no concerns, we usually just take the yes/no responses at face value. Where there are concerns, it is not adding questions to ask people to clarify and be more specific. Sometimes the Spirit does prompt us to ask questions, even questions outside of the TR questions. I don't think pleading the 5th and refusing to answer on grounds that the question was outside of the purview of the interviewer will get one far in a TR interview . . . Another thought I have in the specific case being discussed is this: I don't think it would be amiss to ask the person if he thinks his blog constituted "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed." That is also not one of the TR questions, but it certainly has a bearing on temple worthiness if there are known concerns. I don't think asking him to explain why he feels his blog does or does not pertain to this is amiss. This seems to have been the sticking point between him and the stake president, and the point upon which regaining his recommend rests. At the end of the day, you have to meet the requirements of *your* particular gatekeepers (leader roulette). In my experience, the Brethren upon appeal are almost always going to side with the local leaders unless there is gross incompetence or malfeasance. Yes this is leader roulette and we as a church ought to be opposed to the idea of leader roulette because it means that our fallible leaders are enforcing their personal take on things. In this case, wherein I’m confident my friend did not believe he was “evil speaking of the Lord’s annointed”, the SP is requiring him to have the same type of belief in the Book of Mormon as he himself does. As for appealing to the Brethren, my experience has been different. The one time (during my term in the Bishopric) that a fellow ward member was denied a recommend (several times over the same issue by the SP) and he appealed it to the First Presidency, they sided with the member and told the SP to grant the recommend. 1
MDalby Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 I received a phone call from my daughter last night that her stake just had a stake conference last week. They have informed their stake that they are going to have another stake conference in two weeks and they will have visiting general authorities: Elder Holland and Elder Uchtdorf. Besides the point that I am envious that they get to be in meetings with these two for a weekend, it also crossed my mind that maybe this is another reason why Elder Uchtdorf is back in the Quorum of the Twelve. Obviously the influence of President Oaks in the First Presidency is important for the Church and his preparations but Elder Uchtdorf getting more opportunities to be in the stakes might have a more far reaching impact than if he stayed in the First Presidency. 4
ALarson Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Yes, we can identify a mistake made by a general authority’s son that he failed to stop. I guess I should have clarified that I was speaking of errors in doctrines, not gaffes and thoughtless things done by their kids. I doubt they'd ever admit to past "errors in doctrines". The closest I've seen an admission on that was regarding the Adam/God Doctrine and then there's a debate now over whether that was really doctrine (even though that's how it was referred to by many leaders). President Kimball even referred to it as "false doctrine": Quote “We denounce [the Adam–God] theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.” The leaders have definitely been wrong about past beliefs and teachings, but I haven't seen them really admit to that (still thinking if they have though....). They usually just stop teaching it (such as the whole "gays can be cured" stuff). Edited January 19, 2018 by ALarson 1
Calm Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 9 minutes ago, ALarson said: I doubt they'd ever admit to past "errors in doctrines". The closest I've seen an admission on that was regarding the Adam/God Doctrine and then there's a debate now over whether that was really doctrine (even though that's how it was referred to by many leaders). President Kimball even referred to it as "false doctrine": The leaders have definitely been wrong about past beliefs and teachings, but I haven't seen them really admit to that (still thinking if they have though....). They usually just stop teaching it (such as the whole "gays can be cured" stuff). "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." Seems like this fills the requirement even if one assumes it is not talking about the ban itself, but theories attached to it. https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng
ALarson Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Calm said: "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." Seems like this fills the requirement even if one assumes it is not talking about the ban itself, but theories attached to it. https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng I thought about mentioning this in my post too. Thanks for adding that! But, in discussions now I've seen many argue that these "theories" were never taught by the leaders. So I'm not sure if this is really an admission of being wrong. I see it as such, but I'm not sure others do. Even the word used "disavows" is not an admittance of being wrong really: Quote dis·a·vow: verb deny any responsibility or support for. Edited January 19, 2018 by ALarson
rockpond Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Calm said: "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." Seems like this fills the requirement even if one assumes it is not talking about the ban itself, but theories attached to it. https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng It helps but note that they are trying to cast those past teachings as “theories” now that we are disavowing them even though they were taught and accepted as doctrine. And they are equivocating on the ban itself, leaving it in such a way that a reader can believe that the ban was of God or was an error of men. Edited January 19, 2018 by rockpond 1
USU78 Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 15 hours ago, rockpond said: Oh my. You thought that was "weaponizing"? I was sharing an experience. That is a lot of what goes on here on this discussion board. We're all adults and can easily tell the difference between anecdotal and scientific, between sharing an experience and citing a scholarly work... then we each make our own conclusions. Every argument's participant has a "side," n'est-ce pas? As presented, your presentation trashed the SP and, by implication, the Church proper because of implicit alleged lack of institutional controls. You thus weaponized your friend's story [filtered through his and your perceptions, experiences, and biases] in pursuit of an argument. Just because you pursue argument by Socratic means doesn't mean you're not arguing a position.
Stargazer Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 20 hours ago, Exiled said: Do you consider it unmormon to think that maybe Uchtdorf and maybe Eyring expressed some disappointment in the recent changes? Oaks seemed positively giddy with his new position. Was that wrong? Or is it mandatory to view the leaders as always displaying quiet dignity no matter what? Didn't Joseph Smith rail against holding leaders to such a high standard? No, I don't consider it "unmormon", whatever the heck that's supposed to be. It's perhaps quite human to wonder such things, and since Mormons are humans, there ya go. If I were Oaks, I would be positively giddy with my new position. I know who he is, and he, and the rest of them, are in those positions precisely because they actively look for opportunities to serve, and welcome them when they occur. Many years ago, I had an intimation that would be called to be the president of my servicemen's branch, and I felt somewhat intimidated at the responsibility that would involve, but at the same time somewhat exhilarated at the chance I would have do something of value. I expect President Oaks feels the same way. Does Elder Uchtdorf wish he were still in the First Presidency? Perhaps so. I was sad to be released from my branch presidency position -- though this was occasioned by my being transferred by the Army, and not a leadership shakeup. I was sad because I felt a great deal of fulfillment in presiding over that branch, and I believed I had been in some small way a force for good. I would have liked to have continued in that capacity, but it was not to be. By the way, when I say "I know who he is" I'm not implying personal connection. As for President Eyring, I have seen him in action, at a stake conference a few years ago, and I have to say that he gives off a strong vibe of being jubilant at what he does in the Church. I don't think that being "demoted" from first to second counselor fazes him one bit. 1
rockpond Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 54 minutes ago, USU78 said: Every argument's participant has a "side," n'est-ce pas? As presented, your presentation trashed the SP and, by implication, the Church proper because of implicit alleged lack of institutional controls. You thus weaponized your friend's story [filtered through his and your perceptions, experiences, and biases] in pursuit of an argument. Just because you pursue argument by Socratic means doesn't mean you're not arguing a position. So again... our leaders are fallible but sharing an experience about one who allegedly made a mistake gets me accused of having "trashed the SP". I can't have trashed him because all of us already accept the fact that mistakes are made, right? I think my point has been illustrated once again.
Recommended Posts