Woman Denied Temple Recommend for ...

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Attendance at the temple is very much a privilege, the conditions for which involve very high standards of behavior and conduct.  As much as it may be unopopular to say in this day and age, that includes submission to the authority of those who have been ordained to it.

I don’t see the temple as a privilege, but as part of a covenant.  If I do what I have covenanted to do, then it is my right to go to the temple.  We teach that God is bound when we keep our covenants.  It makes no sense to me that once I covenant to live a certain way, a man can just change the nature of those covenants.

I guess I just don’t see anything in my covenants that compels me to obey an authority just because he’s an authority.  I’ve never covenanted to that. Have you?

[BlueDreams]

44 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

If we lived in a society like the Marshall Islands or Nicaragua, Panama, and Honduras where I served, then maybe it wouldn’t be a big deal. However in Central America, the more educated or professional women did not openly breastfeed. The men still sexualized the female body. Perhaps that’s part of human nature. I think we should be cognizant of our cultural norms and the social settings in which we do things and respect the fact that many people have a strong sense of modesty and may be uncomfortable with some of our actions. What may be appropriate in private, at home or with intimate friends and family may not be appropriate in a church foyer. We do not know the inner struggles some of our brothers and sisters may be having. Out of respect for the feelings of others, perhaps we can apply a bit of restraint, respect for others, selflessness, and common sense. 

Some of what you're seeing in central america is based in part on the campaign ads of major industries to bottle feed and the sense of the breastfeeding is more lower class. See the book "the politics of breastfeeding" if you want to learn more about the international and national history around breastfeeding, class, and industries. 

on the main article, I'm reticent to judge the couple, the ward, or the bishop. I've seen cases, working with bishops where the relationship has seriously soured on both ends do not have the full picture of what's going on and made mistakes. With what Juliann mentioned earlier, that may just be the case. At the same time what the bishop was doing was completely out of the line. Not only on the ultimatum given to the husband and edict to control one's spouse...but prior to that by inserting qualifications to recommend questions that are simply not there. This would not have been there at all if the bishop had acted more appropriately and didn't foster unrighteous dominion. And to me that's a bigger concern than airing out the dirty laundry. Not the best choice....but if there's limited options I could also understand the sense of public outing of the concern.

 

On what you mentioned....culture changes. I don't feel the need to cater to people's rigid sense of modesty over breastfeeding. I'm going to assume the pictures used and blurred were similar to what the woman does to breastfeed and she is like the vast majority of women I see who breastfeed in public (ie. minimal disrobing). As it is in the US and in UT where there is a plethora of children, I've never seen a woman show much at all when breast feeding ever in any form of a public setting, including the nursing rooms that I've been in with nursing mothers (ps, they're often not the most pleasant of places....they're small and smell like used diapers and you have to travel through a bathroom most times to reach it in most churches I've been to). 

I get that people may have triggers to visible breasts. But after having a few men in my office assert that I was triggering them (in regular professional attire) and most of the experiences in my life anyways....I don't think "selflessness" in monitorin my apparel or breastfeeding is useful. IN many cases I find it enabling of their problems. And on larger scales could inadvertently restrict society and for the matter at hand breastfeeding in a way that more detrimental to the overall health of infants. Breastfeeding ain't easy, especially to start. But the research solidly lands it in the healthiest options of children. 

If men sexualize breastfeeding and have wandering eyes at church. That's their problem, not the mothers'.

Also this isn't a "we" thing. It's a mother's thing. Only mothers who've birthed children will have to ever make this choice or face the unwanted opinions of others.  

 

With luv,

BD

Edited July 27, 2018 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

9 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I don’t see the temple as a privilege, but as part of a covenant.  If I do what I have covenanted to do, then it is my right to go to the temple.  We teach that God is bound when we keep our covenants.  It makes no sense to me that once I covenant to live a certain way, a man can just change the nature of those covenants.

I guess I just don’t see anything in my covenants that compels me to obey an authority just because he’s an authority.  I’ve never covenanted to that. Have you?

Nope. Not once. I have heard of unrighteous dominion. Respect and sustaining is one thing. Blindly following, even when they're in the clear wrong, is never going to fit my bill. To me (and obviously my interpretation of my role in the church) that isn't actual sustaining or building a zion people. It's burying a problem and ignoring falsehoods to keep the peace. It's enabling and retards true growth in the gospel. 

Of course I'm also fairly anti-authority oriented anyways and prefer to go by my own beat. So that's probably tied to that bias  

 

With luv,

BD

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I don’t see the temple as a privilege, but as part of a covenant.  If I do what I have covenanted to do, then it is my right to go to the temple.  We teach that God is bound when we keep our covenants.  It makes no sense to me that once I covenant to live a certain way, a man can just change the nature of those covenants.

I guess I just don’t see anything in my covenants that compels me to obey an authority just because he’s an authority.  I’ve never covenanted to that. Have you?

I've heard the argument made that men make precisely that covenant when they receive the priesthood. (D&C 84 Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood)  Essentially stating that those who receive God's servants receive God and therefore receive all that God has. Those who don't follow the servants don't follow God and therefore won't  receive all that God has.

Of course the priesthood covenant is passive in the sense that one never states acceptance of the covenant or oath.

Once someone has gone to the temple the Law of the Lord can be cited as an acceptance of the covenant to uphold leaders and to not speak evil of the Lord's anointed. (That is one interpretation)

But I think you make an excellent point about changing "covenants". Particularly, the question about wearing the garment. I challenge anyone to find where there is any covenant to do that. Is there a covenant to obey the word of wisdom? A covenant to attend church meetings, including Priesthood meeting? But it all comes back to obeying the leaders. It's a catch all covenant that would allow any leader to change any requirement they want. So it's not really about keeping covenants. Like Rongo stated earlier, the TR process is about controlling behaviors the leadership desires to control

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I don’t see the temple as a privilege, but as part of a covenant.  

It amounts to the same thing.  However you frame it, the end result is that there are conditions for entry.  Pretty stringent ones, in fact.

5 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

If I do what I have covenanted to do, then it is my right to go to the temple.  

"If" being the operative word there.  And the determination of this issue involves, to some extent, the assessments of the bishop and stake president.  

Moreover, those covenants include, I think, compliance with D&C 38:

Quote

34 And now, I give unto the church in these parts a commandment, that certain men among them shall be appointed, and they shall be appointed by the voice of the church;
35 And they shall look to the poor and the needy, and administer to their relief that they shall not suffer; and send them forth to the place which I have commanded them;
36 And this shall be their work, to govern the affairs of the property of this church.

And D&C 112:20:

Quote

20 Whosoever receiveth my word receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent, whom I have made counselors for my name’s sake unto you.

And 3 Nephi 12:1:

Quote

1 And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words unto Nephi, and to those who had been called, (now the number of them who had been called, and received power and authority to baptize, was twelve) and behold, he stretched forth his hand unto the multitude, and cried unto them, saying: Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants...

And on and on and on.

Keeping our covenants includes submitting to the authority of the Lord's servants.

5 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

We teach that God is bound when we keep our covenants.  

"When we keep our covenants" being the operative phrase there.  "I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise."  (D&C 82:10)

Part of what the Lord has said is that we are supposed to sustain and follow the counsel of those in authority.  There are checks on that authority, to be sure.  But some of us seem to be under the impression that priesthood leaders are merely ornamental.  Automatons.  Just functionaries there to rubberstamp whatever the individual wants to do.  That is, I think, very incorrect.

The Lord has gone to great lengths to establish His church, to staff it with prophets and apostles, to bestow upon them priesthood authority, and to give them mandates to govern and provide and nurture the members of the Church.  I think we do our community a great disservice when we say, in essence, "Yes, I'll listen to what priesthood leaders have to say, but only to the extent that what they say and what they ask me to do falls within my expectations and personal preferences.  If not, then forget it.  I'm my own man.  But I still expect them to sign off on me going to the temple!"

5 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

It makes no sense to me that once I covenant to live a certain way, a man can just change the nature of those covenants.

Nobody is suggesting that.

5 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I guess I just don’t see anything in my covenants that compels me to obey an authority just because he’s an authority.  I’ve never covenanted to that. Have you?

You're not "compelled" in anything in the Restored Gospel.  Not really.

But c'mon.  Following prophetic counsel is part and parcel of being a Latter-day Saint.  It's baked into the DNA of Mormonism.  

Consider Chapter 9 of the Gospel Essentials manual:

Quote

Prophets Are God’s Representatives on the Earth

...

Many people live in darkness, unsure of God’s will. They believe that the heavens are closed and that people must face the world’s perils alone. How fortunate are the Latter-day Saints! We know that God communicates to the Church through His prophet. With grateful hearts, Saints the world over sing the hymn, “We thank thee, O God, for a prophet to guide us in these latter days” (Hymns, no. 19).

A prophet is a man called by God to be His representative on earth. When a prophet speaks for God, it is as if God were speaking (see D&C 1:38). A prophet is also a special witness for Christ, testifying of His divinity and teaching His gospel. A prophet teaches truth and interprets the word of God. He calls the unrighteous to repentance. He receives revelations and directions from the Lord for our benefit. He may see into the future and foretell coming events so that the world may be warned.

...

We have a prophet living on the earth today. This prophet is the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He has the right to revelation for the entire Church. He holds “the keys of the kingdom,” meaning that he has the authority to direct the entire Church and kingdom of God on earth, including the administration of priesthood ordinances (see Matthew 16:19). 

...

Many people find it easy to believe in the prophets of the past. But it is much greater to believe in and follow the living prophet. We raise our hands to sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator.

How can we sustain the prophet? We should pray for him. His burdens are heavy, and he needs to be strengthened by the prayers of the Saints.

We should study his words. We can listen to his conference addresses. We can also subscribe to the Ensign or Liahona so we can read his conference addresses and other messages he gives.

We should follow his inspired teachings completely. We should not choose to follow part of his inspired counsel and discard that which is unpleasant or difficult. The Lord commanded us to follow the inspired teachings of His prophet:

“Thou shalt give heed unto all his [the prophet’s] words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

“For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith” (D&C 21:4–5).

Additional Scriptures

• Numbers 12:6 (God speaks through prophets)
• 1 Samuel 9:9 (prophet called a seer)
• Amos 3:7 (God reveals His secrets to the prophets)
• Mosiah 8:16–18 (a seer can know of things past and things to come)
• Luke 1:70 (God speaks through prophets)
• D&C 45:10, 15 (God speaks today as in days of old)
• 1 Nephi 22:2 (by the Spirit things are made known to prophets)
• D&C 68:3–5 (when the Lord’s servants speak as moved by the Holy Ghost, it is the mind, will, and voice of the Lord)
• D&C 107:65–67, 91–92 (duties of the President of the Church)
• D&C 43:1–7 (only the prophet is authorized to receive revelations for the Church)

So . . . yeah.  Lots of stuff in our covenants pertain to obedience.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Nope. Not once. I have heard of unrighteous dominion. Respect and sustaining is one thing. Blindly following, even when they're in the clear wrong, is never going to fit my bill. To me (and obviously my interpretation of my role in the church) that isn't actual sustaining or building a zion people. It's burying a problem and ignoring falsehoods to keep the peace. It's enabling and retards true growth in the gospel. 

Of course I'm also fairly anti-authority oriented anyways and prefer to go by my own beat. So that's probably tied to that bias  

With luv,

BD

I'm curious about your "anti-authority" orientation.  Is it a reflexive, automatic sort of thing?

I'm not into "blindly following," but I'm a far cry from being "anti-authority." 

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Once someone has gone to the temple the Law of the Lord can be cited as an acceptance of the covenant to uphold leaders and to not speak evil of the Lord's anointed. (That is one interpretation)

I've shared this before, but my grandfather disagreed strongly with the stake president on an important matter affecting his ward when he was a bishop. The angry stake president arranged a meeting with Elder Perry with him, thinking that he would set him straight. Elder Perry asked him to drive him through the ward, and he asked many questions along the lines of "Who lives in that house? Tell me about that family . . ." Etc. When they got back to the stake center, Elder Perry told the SP that he agreed with Bishop _____. This enraged the SP, who promptly applied for his release and the call of another bishop --- which Salt Lake granted. 

This illustrates --- and is a talked-about example in our family --- that it is possible to righteously disagree with priesthood leaders. But, notice what my grandfather did and did not do (hint: it didn't involve the Exponent blog, KUTV, the Trib, podcasts, etc.). I also like that Salt Lake backed up the stake president as much as possible (not micromanaging and inserting themselves by overriding the release request). I love the loving way that Elder Perry handled this difficult situation, and I also like how he indirectly got the Spirit of my grandfather, his ward, and the situation by simply driving around and having him talk to him about things that didn't directly inform the conflict. 

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've heard the argument made that men make precisely that covenant when they receive the priesthood. (D&C 84 Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood)  Essentially stating that those who receive God's servants receive God and therefore receive all that God has. Those who don't follow the servants don't follow God and therefore won't  receive all that God has.

Of course the priesthood covenant is passive in the sense that one never states acceptance of the covenant or oath.

Once someone has gone to the temple the Law of the Lord can be cited as an acceptance of the covenant to uphold leaders and to not speak evil of the Lord's anointed. (That is one interpretation)

But I think you make an excellent point about changing "covenants". Particularly, the question about wearing the garment. I challenge anyone to find where there is any covenant to do that. Is there a covenant to obey the word of wisdom? A covenant to attend church meetings, including Priesthood meeting? But it all comes back to obeying the leaders. It's a catch all covenant that would allow any leader to change any requirement they want. So it's not really about keeping covenants. Like Rongo stated earlier, the TR process is about controlling behaviors the leadership desires to control

I am curious as to your exegesis of D&C 21:

Quote

“Thou shalt give heed unto all his [the prophet’s] words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

“For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith” (D&C 21:4–5).

Do you think this passage pertains only to Joseph Smith?  And not his successors?

And if it applies to his successors, and if his successors give us counsel, are we supposed to "give heed" unto that counsel (as he receives such things from God, of course)?

And if prophetic counsel includes, as a general precept, something like "Follow the counsel of your local leaders, including your bishop and stake president," then are we obligated to do so?

I get that there can be instances where disobedience is justified (unrighteous dominion and all that).  And as a practical matter, bishops don't really exercise much authority over our lives.  And when they do, it's supposed to be mostly about encouraging us to keep our covenants. 

But as a generalized principle, it seems that bishops can and do function as judges in Israel.  That has to mean something, right?  They have to have some authority over us, surely?  And much of that authority is going to be exercised in a discretionary matter.  It's not like the Church has a published policy specifically detailing how bishops should handle a situation where a mother wants chooses to bare her breast in the foyer when nursing a baby.  And it becomes really silly to suggest that the leaders of the LDS Church have a desire to "control" the breastfeeding of babies.  I mean, c'mon man...

We have covenanted to obey God.  God has told us to "give heed" to the "words and commandments" which the prophet receives from God.  The prophet then delegates some portion of the keys and authority to bishops, who in turn function as judges in Israel, and otherwise administer the activities and programs of the Church at the ward level.  The parameters of acceptable behavior during church services would seem to fall squarely within the bishop's purview.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 27, 2018 by smac97

[SouthernMo]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Keeping our covenants includes submitting to the authority of the Lord's servants.

You’ve quoted some scriptures that can be interpreted to mean that obedience to authority is expected. We may disagree to the interpretation, and that’s fine.

But, in your (our?) covenants (not the scriptures) - when have you covenanted to obey the bishop or any authority for that matter?  I’ve studied my covenants carefully, and there is nothing in my covenants that asks me to obey church leaders - even if they are chosen by him.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Most people deal with that kind of schedule a few times or more, usually when the baby is ill or perhaps going through a growth spurt, but to say you should do that all the time is nuts. The thing about most babies and mothers is that they manage to work out their own schedule that isn't going to kill either one of them. I'm glad this young woman finally figured out she didn't have to do that.

She finally listened to her husband instead of her crazy mom.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

You’ve quoted some scriptures that can be interpreted to mean that obedience to authority is expected. We may disagree to the interpretation, and that’s fine.

But, in your (our?) covenants (not the scriptures) - when have you covenanted to obey the bishop or any authority for that matter?  I’ve studied my covenants carefully, and there is nothing in my covenants that asks me to obey church leaders - even if they are chosen by him.

As I understand it, the covenant we make at baptism (and renew with the Sacrament) includes obedience to God.  See here:

Quote

Latter-day Saints enter into an eternal covenant with God at baptism, wherein they promise to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, to keep his commandments, to bear one another's burdens, to stand as a witness of God at all times, to repent, and to serve and remember Christ always (see Baptismal Covenant; Mosiah 18:8-10; D&C 20:37). They renew this covenant by partaking of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Other covenants involving obligations of faithfulness, magnifying one's calling, sacrifice, obedience, righteousness, chastity, and consecration are made when one is ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood (see Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood), when one receives the temple Endowment, and when a man and woman enter into eternal marriage (see Marriage: Eternal Marriage).

One of God's commandments, found in D&C 21, is to "give heed" to prophetic counsel.

Prophetic counsel includes, I think, the generalized concept of following the inspired counsel of local leaders, including bishops and stake presidents.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SouthernMo]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But c'mon.  Following prophetic counsel is part and parcel of being a Latter-day Saint.  It's baked into the DNA of Mormonism.  

A couple of thoughts on this point:

First: Not my bishop, nor the stake president, nor the area authority to whom the stake president reports have I sustained as a prophet. So if we want to discuss prophetic counsel - we can. For me, it will go down the line of:

Q: “When is one speaking as a prophet?”

A: “When I feel the Holy Ghost as he speaks.”

If I don’t feel the Holy Ghost, then his words are not prophetic.

Second: Perhaps I misunderstand you, but “baked into the DNA of Mormonism” sounds more like an inference towards tradition (a common belief/practice) than doctrine to me.  Just because we have a tradition of obedience to leaders doesn’t mean that it’s doctrine.

[BlueDreams]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm curious about your "anti-authority" orientation.  Is it a reflexive, automatic sort of thing?

I'm not into "blindly following," but I'm a far cry from being "anti-authority." 

Thanks,

-Smac

I would generally say it stems from my childhood (like any good therapist would  ). But seriously I was in my master's program and we did group therapy as a cohort to experience it. The facilitator asked how I viewed authority figures in my life. I looked at him genuinely quizzical and asked "What authority figures?" Which was apparently surprising to those around in my cohort. I've negotiated callings, told new bishops/counselors there were calling that if they tried to give me I would say no to without hesitation. I once had a sister who was like the prelude to the new sister leadership in missions tell me that I needed to kneel in prayer. I asked why. She said Jesus kneeled in prayer. I immediately shot back that Jesus also prayed on the cross and I wasn't about to go an do that. To be fair, on that last one, I did feel the spirit depart. So I told her that I needed to think about this for myself and would promise to pray and study on the manner. 

My honest outlook is that the only ultimate authority in my life is God himself. And even God, I've questioned (less now than at any point in my life). There are both benefits and weaknesses to it. I have a hard time taking correction, for example. But I also feel very firm in my testimony because it isn't reliant on others. I don't feel resentful to the callings I've had and have often worked hard to fulfill them and make them spirit led. I think of my temple covenants and the law of consecration as trying to earnestly share my talents and offer whatever I can to the body of Christ. This means offering things that aren't a calling as well. In my YSA's, that meant giving presentations related to my work for firesides. And talking to a bishop about what to look for or be concerned with when addressing sexual concerns among their ward members. It meant collaborating with as opposed to just following their counsel. And especially for the last one, he often took mine into deep consideration, aware that I had knowledge on specific topics that he lacked. I also don't have the problem of "following the program" that has its own pitfalls when the program may be wrong and then harms them. 

It doesn't mean I'm pushy or insistent everyone do things my way. It just means if I don't agree with your way, I won't do it. It also means that I often see the gospel from a different perspective and interact with it in a different way from some that I've met who defer a little too strongly on authority. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited July 27, 2018 by BlueDreams

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

A couple of thoughts on this point:

First: Not my bishop, nor the stake president, nor the area authority to whom the stake president reports have I sustained as a prophet. So if we want to discuss prophetic counsel - we can. For me, it will go down the line of:

Q: “When is one speaking as a prophet?”

A: “When I feel the Holy Ghost as he speaks.”

If I don’t feel the Holy Ghost, then his words are not prophetic.

Second: Perhaps I misunderstand you, but “baked into the DNA of Mormonism” sounds more like an inference towards tradition (a common belief/practice) than doctrine to me.  Just because we have a tradition of obedience to leaders doesn’t mean that it’s doctrine.

All general, area and local authorities funciton under the direction of the prophet.

 

[SouthernMo]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

One of God's commandments, found in D&C 21, is to "give heed" to prophetic counsel.

Some interesting notes about this section of you post:

First - you misquote the scripture. The scripture does not command the church to give heed to prophetic counsel, but to “give heed” to Joseph Smith. I want to follow the inspired scriptures as exactly as possible, and not to generalize, taking the revelation to be more than it is.

Second - in 1828, the word “heed” did not mean obey.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Heed

For these two reasons (and more), I am still unconvinced that obedience is part of my covenants.

Happy to listen more if you have more evidence that i have covenanted to obey church authorities.

[SouthernMo]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

All general, area and local authorities funciton under the direction of the prophet.

 

So why don’t I sustain all those men as prophets?  Or, are you saying I have because they are part of the hierarchy, by default they are prophets?

Also - I still need to feel the Holy Ghost when anyone (including the president of the church) speaks for me to consider it the word of god or prophetic.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

So why don’t I sustain all those men as prophets?  Or, are you saying I have because they are part of the hierarchy, by default they are prophets?

Also - I still need to feel the Holy Ghost when anyone (including the president of the church) speaks for me to consider it the word of god or prophetic.

It pretty much means that sustaining the prophet entails giving deference to those who serve under his direction. 

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It pretty much means that sustaining the prophet entails giving deference to those who serve under his direction. 

I’m not seeing it. I am well aware that there is a large portion (maybe a majority?) of Mormons who believe this claim and live by it.  But just because a lot believe it doesn’t make it true.

I’m still waiting for someone to show me which of my covenants commit me to obedience to the hierarchy.

[Calm]

I don't think anyone here would assume we have covenanted to obey leaders if they instruct us to do anything obviously immoral or illegal,  Am I correct?

If so, then why wouldn't the same apply to anything else we believed was wrong for any reason?  

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don't think anyone here would assume we have covenanted to obey leaders if they instruct us to do anything obviously immoral or illegal,  Am I correct?

If so, then why wouldn't the same apply to anything else we believed was wrong for any reason?  

The failure to use that righteous judgement is why the Joseph Bishops have thrived. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don't think anyone here would assume we have covenanted to obey leaders if they instruct us to do anything obviously immoral or illegal,  Am I correct?

If so, then why wouldn't the same apply to anything else we believed was wrong for any reason?  

To what extent are you prepared to take that thinking? Can one claim the right to temple attendance even when one doesn't hold to obeying all of the requirements in the temple recommend interview?

What if it entailed something like indulging in pedophilia, for example, which, it appears, some people earnestly feel is not wrong (consider NAMBLA, for example)?

Edited July 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Some interesting notes about this section of you post:

First - you misquote the scripture. The scripture does not command the church to give heed to prophetic counsel, but to “give heed” to Joseph Smith. I want to follow the inspired scriptures as exactly as possible, and not to generalize, taking the revelation to be more than it is.

Second - in 1828, the word “heed” did not mean obey.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Heed

For these two reasons (and more), I am still unconvinced that obedience is part of my covenants.

Happy to listen more if you have more evidence that i have covenanted to obey church authorities.

Your hyper-literal interpretation of the scripture is unorthodox.

 

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your hyper-literal interpretation of the scripture is unorthodox.

 

That may be. But unorthodox does not mean wrong.

In his context, I’d consider Jesus Christ unorthodox.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, SouthernMo said:

That may be. But unorthodox does not mean wrong.

In his context, I’d consider Jesus Christ unorthodox.

If it conflicts with the teachings of Christ, being unorthodox does equate to being wrong.

 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To what extent are you prepared to take that thinking? Can one claim the right to temple attendance even when I don't hold to obeying all of the requirements in the temple recommend interview?

What if it entailed something like indulging in pedophilia, for example, which, it appears, some people earnestly feel is not wrong (consider NAMBLA, for example)?

I asked the question first.  

I think what the requirements for the temple recommend interview are is what is being debated.

Back to my question about where the line gets drawn....since you go to extremes....

If a leader thought your example was right, would anyone be obligated to sustain him by accepting his standard of behaviour?

If not, how do you draw the line since sustaining wouldn't mean accepting everything a leader taught no matter what, right?

Edited July 27, 2018 by Calm