ttribe Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 1 hour ago, kllindley said: Actually, even more interesting to me. You didn't see those posts or didn't see them as petty poisoning the well? Didn't see the posts.
rockpond Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 15 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: I've noticed that this appears to be a common trope among some actively proselytizing apostates these days. It's almost like it comes out of some kind of playbook. When a believing Latter-day Saint acknowledges that the leaders are fallible, challenge him or her to name examples of errors or character flaws in Church leaders. It is important to get them doing this, because that will get them to question the moral authority of those leaders, which is a key part of our strategy. If they refuse to play the game, accuse them of treating the leaders as if they were practically infallible. Personally, I don't fall for it. I haven't observed that. But, I have observed your pattern of frequently insinuating that those with whom you disagree are "apostates". While you and I so often differ theologically, I recognize that we are both active, faithful members of the church. It's a beautiful thing that there is room of both of us in Mormonism's tent. 1
kllindley Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 1 minute ago, ttribe said: Didn't see the posts. I can understand that. I've learned to make sure I read a bit before hand to make sure I understand the context before wading in to accuse someone. Otherwise it teens to look like a great example of polarizing confirmation bias. 2
Exiled Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 19 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: I've noticed that this appears to be a common trope among some actively proselytizing apostates these days. It's almost like it comes out of some kind of playbook. When a believing Latter-day Saint acknowledges that the leaders are fallible, challenge him or her to name examples of errors or character flaws in Church leaders. It is important to get them doing this, because that will get them to question the moral authority of those leaders, which is a key part of our strategy. If they refuse to play the game, accuse them of treating the leaders as if they were practically infallible. Personally, I don't fall for it. I don't know if it is from some playbook. I usually go to the apostate meetings ... religiously ... and they never told me of some playbook that I am supposed to follow. I did have to step out of one of meetings recently and when I came in, the fellow apostates were all grinning and rubbing their hands together, saying that they were really going to sock it to those TBM's. In any event, we all know the leaders are fallible. It's just that some only pay lip service to the concept but don't actually believe it in practice.
Jeanne Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 21 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: I've noticed that this appears to be a common trope among some actively proselytizing apostates these days. It's almost like it comes out of some kind of playbook. When a believing Latter-day Saint acknowledges that the leaders are fallible, challenge him or her to name examples of errors or character flaws in Church leaders. It is important to get them doing this, because that will get them to question the moral authority of those leaders, which is a key part of our strategy. If they refuse to play the game, accuse them of treating the leaders as if they were practically infallible. Personally, I don't fall for it. May I be honest..and sincere?? When you call out apostates as you see them..(and you may not even know them personally)..you seem to insinuate that we are beneath somehow..that we are not redeemable somehow..that we don't have any intelligence or worth if we differ for any reason..it does matter. I don't know you. I. don't know you...but your arrogance is in your posts and sadly...I know that I will know you no other way. I think that is sad.
ttribe Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, kllindley said: I can understand that. I've learned to make sure I read a bit before hand to make sure I understand the context before wading in to accuse someone. Otherwise it teens to look like a great example of polarizing confirmation bias. There's a lot of history here (beyond this thread). This is hardly the first time I've seen Scott's posts use such a method. That's why I said - "Why do you do that?" I've been on and off this board for close to 10 years; this is an ongoing pattern I was observing and commenting on. Regardless, I'm not sure how Scott's comment makes it all better; retaliation is justification? That seems problematic, at best. Edited February 12, 2018 by ttribe 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 1 hour ago, rockpond said: I'm confused. Haven't you taken the position here that the Quorum of the 12 and the First Presidency cannot err because they won't move forward on anything until inspiration brings them all into accord? What have I misunderstood? Sincerely. It's not that they cannot. It's that I trust them not to. There's a fundamental distinction in that. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 (edited) 49 minutes ago, rockpond said: I haven't observed that. But, I have observed your pattern of frequently insinuating that those with whom you disagree are "apostates". While you and I so often differ theologically, I recognize that we are both active, faithful members of the church. It's a beautiful thing that there is room of both of us in Mormonism's tent. I don't think there's room for one allegedly "active, faithful member .. of the Church" to be taunting another to publicly find fault with the leadership of the Church. Yet, like kiwi, I see it happening quite a bit lately. Edited February 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 (edited) 40 minutes ago, ttribe said: There's a lot of history here (beyond this thread). This is hardly the first time I've seen Scott's posts use such a method. That's why I said - "Why do you do that?" I've been on and off this board for close to 10 years; this is an ongoing pattern I was observing and commenting on. Regardless, I'm not sure how Scott's comment makes it all better; retaliation is justification? That seems problematic, at best. If by "a lot of history here," you mean your propensity to make veiled and not-so-subtle personal attacks against me, in the vein of what the board guidelines call "net nannying," I will confirm that. Edited February 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 1
rockpond Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It's not that they cannot. It's that I trust them not to. There's a fundamental distinction in that. I see the "fundamental distinction" which you describe here as the one I've been highlighting (the difference between believed fallibility and infallibility in practice). And note the language used in the preceding posts here... attempts to discuss where mistakes may have been made become "taunting to publicly find fault with the leadership" and get one falsely accused of being an apostate. You seem to have your own personal threshold where you'll identify mistakes made by local leaders and you don't seem to have a problem calling them out on those (see Rongo's list and, I'll add, the recent meeting held by a Utah bishop regarding LGBT issues in his ward). But, at some certain leadership level (which I attempted to have you narrow down earlier) it becomes inappropriate to identify errors and seek to learn from them. Why, for you, do certain leaders get that extra measure of fealty while others do not? Are they not all called of God? Ordained to their positions? 1
rongo Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm just curious about what point in God's eternal plan you think we ever do achieve perfect agreement. Perfect agreement? Not in mortality. In your narrative, were the people of the city of Enoch, for example, quarreling over this or that right up to the point when the city was taken up into heaven? Christ prayed in His intercessory prayer that His followers would be one, even as He and His Father are one and that His followers would be one in Them. I wonder what that means to you exactly. No, I don't think the people of Enoch were quareling over this or that. But, I also don't think any of us are close to being translated, either. The ideal is for us to be one, as he and the Father are one, but we don't achieve this (that's where the atonement makes up the difference). We strive for it, but we fall short --- even the best of us, and even the apostles. Will we still have reservations about one thing or another that the Father or the Son say or do, even after we have been glorified and perfected? Do you believe the Father and the Son Themselves disagree from time to time? After we have been glorified and perfected? No. But, last time I checked, we're still under the Fall here and haven't been glorified and perfected . . . No, the Father and the Son are in perfect agreement. That's what make them the Godhead, and what makes it so that investiture of authority reigns. What one thinks, the other thinks. What one would do, the other one would do. We can strive for this, but I've got news for you: we're never going to do it perfectly. Not even the apostles. I recognize and accept the teaching that even in the Millennium there will be other churches on the earth. I'm not certain how this will play out. Will this continue right on through the entire thousand years? I picture the Millennium as being the period for the final and perfect fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy about the stone cut out of the mountain without hands. That is, during that thousand years, when only the righteous are left on the earth after the wicked have been destroyed, when Satan has been bound, when Christ reigns personally on the earth, the stone will complete the process of rolling forth and breaking down all other kingdoms, consuming all competing or contradictory ideologies until all are subject to Christ and His law. So the way I picture it, though there will be other churches on the earth in the beginning of the Millennium, that will hardly be the case in the end. At any rate, I don't know of any Church teaching that binds me to believe that it will. This is an open question, and you and I can both believe what we want. I merely brought it up because it is a given that not even in the Millennium will people be totally aligned in their views. I've never heard your novel explanation that this will peter out as the Millennium goes on. Maybe --- who knows? I think kllindley has dealt appropriately with this absurd straw man. What is absurd about it? The practical, functional "what it looks like" for what you insist on is tantamount to God controlling or overriding our agency, thoughts, feelings, and ideas ---- if it is not, as you insist, that we sometimes subordinate how we feel to our sustaining of presiding officers' decisions. Since, in your view, this never happens when people are truly unified, then how else would you describe this process?
rongo Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: That really chafes you, doesn't it? Me? No. I liked what the bishop did. Maybe I did write that. Your memory apparently is clearer than mine. I just hope earnestly it never comes to that for me. It hasn't yet. The whole point is, what if it did happen to you in your area? What would you do then? The reality of your situation would put you squarely at odds with your stated principles of being in perfect alignment with your local leaders, and your stated actions if this did happen. What I did was to marvel at the rapidity (less than a day) with which this unauthorized and presumptuous initiative was shut down after it came to light. Does it disappoint you that it was? Was "Salt Lake" wrong to do so? No, Salt Lake was entirely correct to do so. But this was another example of a local action you would have strongly objected to. How would you achieve unity (as you define it) under those circumstances? This was, what, the CEO of Dell Computers or something? Even smart people with lots of Church experience sometimes do things as leaders that other people have to choose what to do with, and it's not as black and white as you make it out to be. Nor should it be. What a boring Church and mortality if our only simple task was to unthinkingly rubber stamp everything from every leader. Because to feel or think any other way would be . . . not unified.
rongo Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 1 hour ago, kiwi57 said: I've noticed that this appears to be a common trope among some actively proselytizing apostates these days. It's almost like it comes out of some kind of playbook . . . Personally, I don't fall for it. I think "trope" is an up-and-coming throw-away word (I'm hearing it more and more lately). Leaving name-calling out of it, it is interesting that the point is never engaged. If people agree in theory that apostles aren't infallible, but can't ever give an example of fallibility, what good is their "theoretical" fallibility? Especially when the rubber hits the road: every decision and thought ever had in their office is held to be revealed and inspired. It's just that it could happen. In theory. I think that lip service given to fallibility loses its punch when people refuse to admit to or give any examples. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, rongo said: Perfect agreement? Not in mortality. No, I don't think the people of Enoch were quareling over this or that. But, I also don't think any of us are close to being translated, either. The ideal is for us to be one, as he and the Father are one, but we don't achieve this (that's where the atonement makes up the difference). We strive for it, but we fall short --- even the best of us, and even the apostles. After we have been glorified and perfected? No. But, last time I checked, we're still under the Fall here and haven't been glorified and perfected . . . No, the Father and the Son are in perfect agreement. That's what make them the Godhead, and what makes it so that investiture of authority reigns. What one thinks, the other thinks. What one would do, the other one would do. We can strive for this, but I've got news for you: we're never going to do it perfectly. Not even the apostles. I don't think we're so very far apart on this -- except to say that we should be striving toward the ideal, even in mortality. Perhaps you agree with this, but I haven't seen you acknowledge it directly. Quote This [whether the proliferation of churches on the earth will diminish as the Millennium progresses] is an open question, and you and I can both believe what we want. I merely brought it up because it is a given that not even in the Millennium will people be totally aligned in their views. I've never heard your novel explanation that this will peter out as the Millennium goes on. Maybe --- who knows? Makes a lot of sense, though, don't you think? Again, though I'm well aware of the teaching from Joseph Smith that there will be other churches on the earth during the Millennium, I know of nothing that binds me to the belief that this condition will prevail throughout the entire thousand years. I would be surprised, in fact, to learn that it will. Quote What is absurd about it? The practical, functional "what it looks like" for what you insist on is tantamount to God controlling or overriding our agency, thoughts, feelings, and ideas ---- if it is not, as you insist, that we sometimes subordinate how we feel to our sustaining of presiding officers' decisions. Since, in your view, this never happens when people are truly unified, then how else would you describe this process? I think Hamba described it very well several posts ago in the real-life example he shared about how he had come to unity with his stake president and they both had the sacred experience thereby of receiving divine revelation. I think President M. Russell Ballard has taught it in his sermons and books on "counseling with our councils." It would be time well spent to consider and apply Hamba's example and President Ballard's teachings. 1
rongo Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It's not that they cannot. It's that I trust them not to. There's a fundamental distinction in that. Like this. What good is it to say that it is possible, but that you trust that it will never happen? That's a distinction without a difference. 1
CV75 Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 5 hours ago, rockpond said: Love this. Thank you. Picking up from my question yesterday, what does the D&C say that you think the current leadership is not doing? That question was intended to be treated as a CFR for some information such as a specific required order for sustaining, setting apart, and obtaining common consent spelled out (I can't find it).
ttribe Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If by "a lot of history here," you mean your propensity to make veiled and not-so-subtle personal attacks against me, in the vein of what the board guidelines call "net nannying," I will confirm that. Just observations on what you say; not who you are. But, hey, you know how to use the report button if you want to turn me in for "nannying." Perhaps the mods will make you happy and throw me off the board.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 8 minutes ago, rongo said: Me? No. I liked what the bishop did. I meant it chafes you that I disagree with it. Quote The whole point is, what if it did happen to you in your area? What would you do then? And my whole point is it's highly doubtful it will with what I have observed generally and locally. Quote The reality of your situation would put you squarely at odds with your stated principles of being in perfect alignment with your local leaders, and your stated actions if this did happen. I never asserted that in each and every conceivable circumstance I would be "in perfect alignment with ... local leaders." I like to think that I would not have been so aligned had I been present during the Mountain Meadows Massacre, to take an extreme example. Quote No, Salt Lake was entirely correct to do so. But this was another example of a local action you would have strongly objected to. How would you achieve unity (as you define it) under those circumstances? This was, what, the CEO of Dell Computers or something? Even smart people with lots of Church experience sometimes do things as leaders that other people have to choose what to do with, and it's not as black and white as you make it out to be. And when they do, they need to be called to account for it. Which argues for the need sometimes to take things up the line to higher authority. As it was, this thing didn't come to light until Dehlin got hold of it and publicized it, if I recall correctly. It should never have gotten as far as it did. Somebody should have blown the whistle earlier.
kllindley Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 20 minutes ago, rockpond said: I see the "fundamental distinction" which you describe here as the one I've been highlighting (the difference between believed fallibility and infallibility in practice). 18 minutes ago, rongo said: What is absurd about it? The practical, functional "what it looks like" for what you insist on is tantamount to God controlling or overriding our agency, thoughts, feelings, and ideas ---- if it is not, as you insist, that we sometimes subordinate how we feel to our sustaining of presiding officers' decisions. Since, in your view, this never happens when people are truly unified, then how else would you describe this process? So, do either of you two care to engage with President Hinckley's comments in two separate talks? It seems to me that you don't believe him. I have no problem with that. I deeply respect differing beliefs. But what he said it's pretty clear. He doesn't seem to be describing a process of rubber-stamping in the name of unity or voting while disagreeing. 2
rongo Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't think we're so very far apart on this -- except to say that we should be striving toward the ideal, even in mortality. Perhaps you agree with this, but I haven't seen you acknowledge it directly. I think you're right. And, I don't think we're very far apart in agreeing that we should be striving for the ideal, even in mortality. I think where we differ is on whether or not the apostles put on their pants one leg at a time, just like we do.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, rongo said: Like this. What good is it to say that it is possible, but that you trust that it will never happen? That's a distinction without a difference. Absolutely there is a difference. The difference is between compulsion and choice. It's a matter of agency. Someone who is fallible nevertheless has the agency to choose not to fall. I'm puzzled that you don't see that. Edited February 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
rongo Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 1 minute ago, kllindley said: So, do either of you two care to engage with President Hinckley's comments in two separate talks? It seems to me that you don't believe him. I have no problem with that. I deeply respect differing beliefs. But what he said it's pretty clear. He doesn't seem to be describing a process of rubber-stamping in the name of unity or voting while disagreeing. I'm sorry, could you refer me to the talk again? Lost in thread pages. I also am going to respond to your question a few pages ago on my specific list of things the Brethren have/haven't done. I'm just trying to fit in what I can when I can.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, rongo said: I think you're right. And, I don't think we're very far apart in agreeing that we should be striving for the ideal, even in mortality. I think where we differ is on whether or not the apostles put on their pants one leg at a time, just like we do. If you believe President Hinckley, they do.
kllindley Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 1 hour ago, ttribe said: There's a lot of history here (beyond this thread). This is hardly the first time I've seen Scott's posts use such a method. That's why I said - "Why do you do that?" I've been on and off this board for close to 10 years; this is an ongoing pattern I was observing and commenting on. Regardless, I'm not sure how Scott's comment makes it all better; retaliation is justification? That seems problematic, at best. Ah. So it was more of a personal jab at Scott based on your past history than a substantive contribution to the discussion. That makes more sense.
rongo Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Absolutely there is a difference. The difference is between compulsion and choice. It's a matter of agency. Someone who is fallible has the agency not to fall. I'm puzzled that you don't see that. Right, but functionally, there is no difference between a man who cannot do otherwise and one who can, but definitely won't because he's perfect. It goes round and round, of course. "No, no, he really could, in theory, but he won't. He just won't. Not ever."
Recommended Posts