Woman Denied Temple Recommend for ...

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

Check out the dictionary definition of orthodox vs. unorthodox. Let’s agree on definitions of these words before we discuss that.  Pick any dictionary you want and let me know.

But for now, please show me where my interpretation of Section 21 “conflicts with the teaching of Christ.”  This is a strong claim.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

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?

Of course not. You're the one who seems to be arguing that worthiness is whatever an individual happens to believe it to be. I'm merely asking where you draw the line.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, SouthernMo said:

Check out the dictionary definition of orthodox vs. unorthodox. Let’s agree on definitions of these words before we discuss that.  Pick any dictionary you want and let me know.

But for now, please show me where my interpretation of Section 21 “conflicts with the teaching of Christ.”  This is a strong claim.

Show me where any authoritative teaching in this gospel dispensation has held that the scripture applies to Joseph Smith and him only. That itself is a rather singular claim.

 

[SouthernMo]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Show me where any authoritative teaching in this gospel dispensation has held that the scripture applies to Joseph Smith and him only. That itself is a rather singular claim.

 

Sure. But, it rests on accepting the current edition of doctrine and covenants as “authoritative teaching in this gospel dispensation.”  If you don’t accept that book, then you’re right - my argument falls apart.

First, the revelation is given to Joseph Smith, so when the revelation says “thou,” we must generally assume God is speaking to Joseph Smith.  Unless, we see where God clarifies that he is speaking to another person or group - which happens in verse 4.

D&C Section 21:

1 Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou [Joseph Smith] shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ,
2 Being inspired of the Holy Ghost to lay the foundation thereof, and to build it up unto the most holy faith.
3 Which church was organized and established in the year of your Lord eighteen hundred and thirty, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April.
4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou (see how the revelation switches to instructing the church as whole here) shalt give heed unto all his (again, I interpret this to mean Joseph Smith) words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

If God had meant this to mean all prophets  moving forward (including Joseph Smith), wouldn’t God have been more clear in his  revelation?  I think God was aware of the difference between singular and plural pronouns.

 In this section, it’s very clear to me that God is only talking about heeding Joseph Smith’s words.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, SouthernMo said:

Sure. But, it rests on accepting the current edition of doctrine and covenants as “authoritative teaching in this gospel dispensation.”  If you don’t accept that book, then you’re right - my argument falls apart.

First, the revelation is given to Joseph Smith, so when the revelation says “thou,” we must generally assume God is speaking to Joseph Smith.  Unless, we see where God clarifies that he is speaking to another person or group - which happens in verse 4.

D&C Section 21:

1 Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou [Joseph Smith] shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ,
2 Being inspired of the Holy Ghost to lay the foundation thereof, and to build it up unto the most holy faith.
3 Which church was organized and established in the year of your Lord eighteen hundred and thirty, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April.
4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou (see how the revelation switches to instructing the church as whole here) shalt give heed unto all his (again, I interpret this to mean Joseph Smith) words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

If God had meant this to mean all prophets  moving forward (including Joseph Smith), wouldn’t God have been more clear in his  revelation?  I think God was aware of the difference between singular and plural pronouns.

 In this section, it’s very clear to me that God is only talking about heeding Joseph Smith’s words.

You've given me your own exegesis. I don't need that. I already know what your opinion is. I'm asking that you cite any authoritative teaching that agrees with your interpretation.

If you can't, just say so. I'll understand.

 

[SouthernMo]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You've given me your own exegesis. I don't need that. I already know what your opinion is. I'm asking that you cite any authoritative teaching that agrees with your interpretation.

If you can't, just say so. I'll understand.

 

No - it is my own interpretation.  And if I end up being wrong for doing my best to follow the scriptures as closely as possible, then I’ll go to hell for that.

But, I would appreciate a response to your claim.  Show me how my understanding of that section “conflicts with the teachings of Christ.”

[juliann]

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/07/27/mormon-feminists-urge-lds/

 

Quote

 

Mormon feminists have launched a churchwide letter-writing campaign, urging LDS officials to issue a “statement of support for nursing mothers.”

“We need to remove the barriers and difficulties placed upon [Mormon] women for how they mother their children and we need to make it easier to be a woman in this church,” Carrie Stoddard Salisbury declared in an Exponent II blog. “Without such an official declaration, women will remain at risk for judgment and exclusion if their chosen way of nurturing their babies doesn’t align with the preferences of a local priesthood authority.”

 

Quote

The local lay leader said it was a “modesty issue,” Exponent II reported, and “blamed her for the men and boys having impure thoughts.” He insisted she cover up or use the mother’s room, off the restroom.

This is a disingenuous piece, the reporter saves herself from having to give a balanced report because the woman didn't want to be identified. Well, the reporter didn't have to identify the ward members, either. What a cop out to report a local issue and then feign objectivity by asking the church itself for comment and leaving it at that. Meanwhile, Exponent is allowed to say whatever about what was allegedly said. Only without the allegedly. 

So Peggy Stack is the official spokeswoman for secondhand reports from an internet blog and calls it news. Disgraceful. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 You're the one who seems to be arguing that worthiness is whatever an individual happens to believe it to be. 

Not in the least.

 

Back to my original question...

Quote

 then why wouldn't the same apply to anything else we believed was wrong for any reason...

At what point do you think anyone should suppress their feelings of instruction being wrong or a mistake and follow them anyway?  Is there a point for you?

Edited July 28, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

No - it is my own interpretation.  And if I end up being wrong for doing my best to follow the scriptures as closely as possible, then I’ll go to hell for that.

But, I would appreciate a response to your claim.  Show me how my understanding of that section “conflicts with the teachings of Christ.”

No Church leader that I know of, past or present, has authoritatively taught that this passage is meant to apply to Joseph Smith and only Joseph Smith. That you cannot provide an example of such a teaching would support my understanding. Your private interpretations of the scriptures that run contrary to the teachings of the prophets and apostles collectively hold no interest for me.

[Scott Lloyd]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not in the least.

Then I'm not understanding you.
 

Quote

 

Back to my original question...

At what point do you think anyone should suppress their feelings of instruction being wrong or a mistake and follow them anyway?  Is there a point for you?

 

At the point where the instruction clearly contradicts the scriptures and the collective teachings over time of the apostles and prophets. Mountain Meadows Massacre would be a prominent example.

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No Church leader that I know of, past or present, has authoritatively taught that this passage is meant to apply to Joseph Smith and only Joseph Smith. That you cannot provide an example of such a teaching would support my understanding. Your private interpretations of the scriptures that run contrary to the teachings of the prophets and apostles collectively hold no interest for me.

Two things:

One: Why would I need someone (church leader or not) to explain to me what the scriptures clearly state?

Two: Just because it hasn’t been taught doesn’t mean that it’s in conflict.  You claimed there is conflict. The absense of Support or silence is not conflict.

Are you the same Scott who wrote for Deseret News?

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No Church leader that I know of, past or present, has authoritatively taught that this passage is meant to apply to Joseph Smith and only Joseph Smith. That you cannot provide an example of such a teaching would support my understanding. Your private interpretations of the scriptures that run contrary to the teachings of the prophets and apostles collectively hold no interest for me.

Of course that passage is only referencing Joseph Smith. It would be silly to think that this passage would apply to anyone else. That's like saying we should take the Lord's instruction to Nephi to slay Laban as applying to anyone who refuses to sell something we want. 

Of course it can appropriately be used as an example of how the Lord views his prophets and our obligation as members to heed their words. But I think it's unfair to suggest the actual scriptural passage is referencing anyone other than Joseph. 

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Of course that passage is only referencing Joseph Smith. It would be silly to think that this passage would apply to anyone else. That's like saying we should take the Lord's instruction to Nephi to slay Laban as applying to anyone who refuses to sell something we want. 

Of course it can appropriately be used as an example of how the Lord views his prophets and our obligation as members to heed their words. But I think it's unfair to suggest the actual scriptural passage is referencing anyone other than Joseph. 

The following quotation from the manual for the CES Doctrine and Covenants course pretty much typifies the teaching of the Church over the years regarding Doctrine and Coveants 21:4-5.

 

Quote

 

D&C 21:4–5. Whose Words Are the Saints to Receive As If from the Lord’s “Own Mouth”?

President Joseph Fielding Smith answered that question in this manner: “There has been much speculation in relation to the statement of the Lord to the Prophet Joseph Smith: ‘For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.’ This is the word which the Lord gave to Israel in relation to Moses. It is just as true in the case of any other person who is sustained as the mouthpiece of the Almighty. Later, in speaking of his inspired servants, the Lord said: ‘And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.’ (D. & C. 68:4.) In this dispensation the same characteristics are shown by the people as were in ancient times. We are more inclined to accept as the word of the Lord something which was uttered in some former dispensation, but look with critical eye and unbelief upon that which the Lord delivers today through his chosen servants. Yet the word of the Lord is very clear on this matter. Let us not lose sight of the word of the Lord, that by hearkening to his chosen servant—and this is true whether it is Joseph Smith or some other President of the Church—‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against us.’” (Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:107–8.)

D&C 21:5. Why Might It Require Patience and Faith to Sustain the Lord’s Prophets?

President Harold B. Lee warned:

“The only safety we have as members of this church is to do exactly what the Lord said to the Church in that day when the Church was organized. We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, ‘as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; … as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.’ (D&C 21:4–5.) There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life.

“… Your safety and ours depends upon whether or not we follow the ones whom the Lord has placed to preside over his church. He knows whom he wants to preside over this church, and he will make no mistake. The Lord doesn’t do things by accident. …

“Let’s keep our eye on the President of the Church.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1970, pp. 152–53.)

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Are you the same Scott who wrote for Deseret News?

Why are you asking?

 

[6EQUJ5]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why are you asking?

 

Scott works for the Church News, specifically.  

I think it is an appropriate time to point out that Scott has admitted on this board that he would not obey a leader who told him not to use electronic devices in sacrament meeting.  That he now stands in judgement of this woman -- who is basically being punished for not being obedient -- is pretty rich.

So the real question is, would Scott choose his iPod touch or his recommend were he forced to choose.....

Edited July 28, 2018 by 6EQUJ5

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Scott works for the Church News, specifically.  

Inaccurate.

Quote

I think it is an appropriate time to point out that Scott has admitted on this board that he would not obey a leader who told him not to use electronic devices in sacrament meeting. 

CFR.

Quote

That he now stands in judgement of this woman -- who is basically being punished for not being obedient -- is pretty rich.

"Stands in judgment"? 🤣 I've said that I think she is not being reasonable.

Exaggerate much?

Quote

So the real question is, would Scott choose his iPod touch or his recommend were he forced to choose.....

Well, I think it's a safe prediction that this will never be a choice that I or anyone else will have to make.

[kllindley]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The following quotation from the manual for the CES Doctrine and Covenants course pretty much typifies the teaching of the Church over the years regarding Doctrine and Coveants 21:4-5.

 

 

Right. 

Of course it can appropriately be used as an example of how the Lord views his prophets and our obligation as members to heed their words. 

[6EQUJ5]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've said that I think she is not being reasonable

I'm sorry, Scott.  For some reason I had gotten the impression that you supported her ward and stake leadership.

I'm glad to see you standing up for members being bullied by their priesthood leaders.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I'm sorry, Scott.  For some reason I had gotten the impression that you supported her ward and stake leadership.

I'm glad to see you standing up for members being bullied by their priesthood leaders.

Sarcasm or intentional misrepresentation of Scott’s comment?

I think this thread is way past overdone and is well into in incineration.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Right. 

Of course it can appropriately be used as an example of how the Lord views his prophets and our obligation as members to heed their words. 

I think it’s an example of prototypes in scripture. As Joseph Fielding Smith alluded in the quote I cited, Moses and Joseph Smith are prototypes (see Moses 1:41) of whomever God calls at any given time to be His spokesman on earth to His covenant people. 

The stories and revelations of scripture are preserved for us for the timeless lessons they teach. If we are too limited or too literal in our understanding of them, we miss some of the precious truths they contain for us in the time and setting we receive them. 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I'm sorry, Scott.  For some reason I had gotten the impression that you supported her ward and stake leadership.

I'm glad to see you standing up for members being bullied by their priesthood leaders.

You’re talking gibberish. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sarcasm or intentional misrepresentation of Scott’s comment?

I think this thread is way past overdone and is well into in incineration.

 

I think there may yet be potential for worthwhile discussion. I’d like to see Smac97 return and respond to some of the comments that have been made. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You’re talking gibberish. 

It is good to end the day in agreement. Sleep well, Scott. 

Busy day tomorrow so I hope I won’t be saying much. 

[6EQUJ5]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sarcasm or intentional misrepresentation of Scott’s comment?

Neither.

Being unreasonable does not disqualify one from attending the temple.  If this women is merely being unreasonable, then it only follows that her leaders are going well beyond the limits of their stewardship by introducing new temple worthiness requirements.  This would clearly be the exercise of unrighteous dominion.  Barring this woman from the temple simply because her leadership dislikes her breastfeeding preferences, is just plain wrong.

[Calm]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I think there may yet be potential for worthwhile discussion. I’d like to see Smac97 return and respond to some of the comments that have been made. 

You guys enjoy it then. It has gotten too cluttered for me and comments too much  misunderstood on all sides...some like that last “gibberish” feels intentionally so. When I start to feel I am putting all my effort into corrections, doesn’t work for me. And this can easily happen with too many subtopics and readers start using assumptions to keep up rather than careful reading  

p