Calm Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said: Neither. Being unreasonable does not disqualify one from attending the temple. That would depend on what action was unreasonable and how unreasonable it was. Apostasy might be viewed as one form of unreasonableness, for example Edited July 28, 2018 by Calm 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, Calm said: 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 I hear what you’re saying. I may be putting 6EQ*** on ignore.
kllindley Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: 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. I totally agree. Wasn't trying to argue otherwise. I do disagree with the prooftexting that is often done in the Church, especially when we misrepresent the text. I believe that the scriptural text is sacred and divine. Not always "perfect" or even always true in a literal sense. But I believe we can learn from scripture as the Lord has seen fit to deliver them to us, without trying to force the text to say something it does not. Again, I agree with your point that this passage is an important and accurate type as to how God desires members to treat His servants and their counsel. But I think we can make that argument without misrepresenting the text of scripture. 2
Bernard Gui Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, smac97 said: Well, inappropriate attire can be "distracting" in the sense of giving others in the courtroom an inappropriate looksee (from the article I quoted earlier😞 Inappropriately revealing attire isn't a "sexual" issue per se. It can just be inappropriate. Distracting. Consider this bit from a sidebar in the article: I had to look up "the quad-boob look." Um, yeah. Not really appropriate for court. Other times clothing can be "distracting" in terms of color or style. Again from the sidebar in the article: Logos, sparkles, jewelry, red-soled shoes, etc. are not "sexual," but they can be "distracting." Thanks, -Smac How about a lawyer feeding her baby in court? If you can do it in a church foyer, why not in court? Shouldn’t we get over our hang ups? Edited July 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui
Hamba Tuhan Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: How about a lawyer feeding her baby in court? If you can do it in a church foyer, why not in court? Shouldn’t we get over our hang ups? We have a member of our local parliament who does it. I’m a fan. To pretend that women aren’t mothers too is weird to me. I’ve spent most of my life living where people just take this all in stride. Which doesn’t mean I’m picking sides in this current matter... Edited July 28, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan 1
SouthernMo Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Why are you asking? Just trying to understand the context of your comments. If I worked for one company for hours a day for many years, that would shape my view.
Stargazer Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 On 7/26/2018 at 7:44 PM, ttribe said: Yeah...I think I might have lost it at that point. That's soooooooooo not okay to say. It is not OK, but misspeaking is common with everyone. I've said things I knew immediately were inappropriate, but it's hard to call words back isn't it? And then we have those who love to make people offenders for a word.
juliann Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 5 hours ago, Calm said: Apologies for using the public forum, will delete when message is received... Scott L., Scott Gordon would like to contact you. Your old email doesn't work and you don't accept PMs, so I must ask publicly. If you could contact him through FM sooner than later (very time sensitive), he would appreciate it. I am not sure of his phone situation as fires are in his area, but his email works. Probably easiest to use the "contact specific person" on this page: https://www.fairmormon.org/contact Thanks, Cal I will probably ask a few places on the board until I can tell you read it...sounds you will be back soon to this thread. Who is this for?
juliann Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 And please guys, stop with vulgar references to women’s body parts. They are breasts. It’s just not a good look for men to be saying anything else in public. It is not “respecting women.” 2
USU78 Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 17 minutes ago, juliann said: And please guys, stop with vulgar references to women’s body parts. They are breasts. It’s just not a good look for men to be saying anything else in public. It is not “respecting women.” I'm pretty sure it was a woman using slang name.
Bernard Gui Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: We have a member of our local parliament who does it. I’m a fan. To pretend that women aren’t mothers too is weird to me. I’ve spent most of my life living where people just take this all in stride. Which doesn’t mean I’m picking sides in this current matter... I don’t think it has anything at all to do with pretending women aren’t mothers.The point is that we go with the culture in which we live and we respect the people around us. Besides, this was in the context of decorum in an American courtroom. Would it be appropriate for this lady in the news story to deliberately go into the deacon’s quorum or a high council meeting to do her business? Edited July 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui
smac97 Posted July 28, 2018 Author Posted July 28, 2018 (edited) 19 hours 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. No. But we are asked to sustain them in their respective offices. From the TR questions: "Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?" The TR questions encapsulate the essence of LDS orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Sustaining the local authorities of the Church is clearly part of that. And listening to and following their inspired counsel is part of "sustaining" them. We also have this: Quote What does it mean to sustain my Church leaders? As members of the Church, we have the opportunity to sustain those the Lord has called to serve. We raise our hand to indicate that we sustain the General Authorities and officers of the Church and each of the leaders in our wards and stakes—including Young Women class presidencies. Sustaining leaders involves more than just a raised hand—it means that we stand behind them, pray for them, accept assignments and callings from them, obey their counsel, and refrain from criticizing them. And this: Quote “It is a serious wrong in the presence of the Almighty for one to vote to sustain the authorities of the Church and then to go away and oppose them and trample under foot the counsels that they give; and we will be judged of the Lord for it (President Joseph F. Smith, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, 1998, 218–19). And this: Quote “When we sustain the President of the Church by our uplifted hand, it not only signifies that we acknowledge before God that he is the rightful possessor of all the priesthood keys; it means that we covenant with God that we will abide by the direction and the counsel that comes through His prophet. It is a solemn covenant” (David B. Haight, Solemn Assemblies, Ensign, Nov. 1994, 14–15). And this: Quote “Men may become dissatisfied one with another, they may become dissatisfied towards the Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, or others, and may say in their hearts, “I do not like such an one; I do not believe he is as good as he should be, he has too many faults and weaknesses and, therefore, I cannot and will not acknowledge his authority, as I have not faith in the man.” Doubtless there are those, too many perhaps, who feel that way, but the trouble is, … just because they have become dissatisfied with the individual and harbored feelings of bitterness in their hearts against their brethren, they lose sight of the designs of the Almighty; they turn against the authority of the Holy Priesthood; and through their blindness allow themselves to be led astray, and at last turn away from the Church.” And this: Quote What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. And on and on and on. I could copy and paste dozens, perhaps hundreds, of quotes from prophets and apostles urging us to listen to and follow the counsel of bishops. Quote 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. That sounds fine. Unless, of course, you are out of tune with the Holy Ghost and the priesthood leader is in tune. Quote 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. No, I was not referring to "tradition." The centrality of the atonement of Jesus Christ is "baked into the DNA of Mormonism." So is belief in continuing revelation, restored priesthood authority and ordinances, living prophets and apostles, an open scriptural canon, gifts of the Spirit, and so on. It seems pretty much axiomatic, then, to state that prophets and apostles and local leaders are appointed to provide counsel and instruction to members. Bishops are given keys relating to their office. And the right to receive inspiration pertaining to those within their stewardship. And the responsibility to exercise those keys and seek out that inspiration. None of this is mere "tradition." These are, I think, some fairly foundational precepts in the Restored Gospel. So going back to the issue of covenants: I submit that we have covenants to obey God (baptism / Sacrament / temple). Obedience to God necessarily entails following the inspired instructions and counsel of His prophets and apostles. Our prophets and apostles frequently teach us to seek out and follow counsel from our local leaders (bishops and stake presidents). So obedience to general and local authorities is, I submit, a component of our covenant relationship with God. That obedience is not supposed to be unthinking or blind. That obedience is not supposed supplant the need for each of us to study and ponder and pray and obtain guidance and revelation for ourselves. But following the counsel of priesthood leaders is, I think, a concept that is "baked into the DNA of Mormonism" (I apologize for the mixed metaphor ("baking" and "DNA")). Quote Just because we have a tradition of obedience to leaders doesn’t mean that it’s doctrine. I agree. The tradition flows out from the doctrine. And the doctrine is plainly, obviously there. Thanks, -Smac Edited July 28, 2018 by smac97 3
Exiled Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 Do I have my facts straight in that this controversy is about a woman breastfeeding her infant in the foyer and someone saw her breast? Then she objected to being censured by the bishop and then eventually lost her recommend because she wouldn't follow what the bishop said?
smac97 Posted July 28, 2018 Author Posted July 28, 2018 8 minutes ago, Exiled said: Do I have my facts straight in that this controversy is about a woman breastfeeding her infant in the foyer and someone saw her breast? Then she objected to being censured by the bishop and then eventually lost her recommend because she wouldn't follow what the bishop said? Not quite. I recommend you go back and read the OP. Thanks, -Smac
Exiled Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: Not quite. I recommend you go back and read the OP. Thanks, -Smac Why don't you be so kind and save me some time and tell me where I am wrong or give a synopsis of what happened? There are 15 screens ......
Damien the Leper Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 On 7/26/2018 at 9:37 AM, smac97 said: I agree. That's what makes this story so silly, IMO. A small amount of discretion and accommodation would solve everything. Ideally we wouldn't know about this kerfuffle at all. Based on her remarks to the media, that seems to be the case. Quite understandable. Thanks, -Smac I just like the fact that you used the word kerfuffle. That is all and I am grateful to you. 2
SouthernMo Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 41 minutes ago, smac97 said: So going back to the issue of covenants: I submit that we have covenants to obey God (baptism / Sacrament / temple). Obedience to God necessarily entails following the inspired instructions and counsel of His prophets and apostles. Our prophets and apostles frequently teach us to seek out and follow counsel from our local leaders (bishops and stake presidents). You’ve put a lot of thought into your response - thank you. I pulled the above quote from your response, and highlighted what I believe is either the point of agreement or disagreement between our interpretations of sustain. I believe that inspired instruction should be followed. My first and enduring point is that obedience alone (without being inspired) is not part of my covenants with God.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 7 hours ago, Calm said: Apologies for using the public forum, will delete when message is received... Scott L., Scott Gordon would like to contact you. Your old email doesn't work and you don't accept PMs, so I must ask publicly. If you could contact him through FM sooner than later (very time sensitive), he would appreciate it. I am not sure of his phone situation as fires are in his area, but his email works. Probably easiest to use the "contact specific person" on this page: https://www.fairmormon.org/contact Thanks, Cal I will probably ask a few places on the board until I can tell you read it...sounds you will be back soon to this thread. Cal, I just saw this. I’ll try to contact Scott now. Thanks. Don’t delete for a few minutes. I need the link. 1
juliann Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 38 minutes ago, Exiled said: Do I have my facts straight in that this controversy is about a woman breastfeeding her infant in the foyer and someone saw her breast? Then she objected to being censured by the bishop and then eventually lost her recommend because she wouldn't follow what the bishop said? No one is interviewing ward members, of course. What I saw reported was excessive nudity, among other things. Nobody should believe this conveniently crafted narrative when not even reporters are interviewing witnesses. Women nurse in church every Sunday.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, Calm said: Apologies for using the public forum, will delete when message is received... Scott L., Scott Gordon would like to contact you. Your old email doesn't work and you don't accept PMs, so I must ask publicly. If you could contact him through FM sooner than later (very time sensitive), he would appreciate it. I am not sure of his phone situation as fires are in his area, but his email works. Probably easiest to use the "contact specific person" on this page: https://www.fairmormon.org/contact Thanks, Cal I will probably ask a few places on the board until I can tell you read it...sounds you will be back soon to this thread. Cal, I just sent an email to Scott via FM website. As a failsafe, would you respond as well? You can give him my new email address, [redacted by author]. Edited July 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 1
Exiled Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, juliann said: No one is interviewing ward members, of course. What I saw reported was excessive nudity, among other things. Nobody should believe this conveniently crafted narrative when not even reporters are interviewing witnesses. Women nurse in church every Sunday. So, are the ward members going to come forward and give their side of the story? Surely they could come on this forum or somewhere else? Anyway, what do they mean by excessive nudity, and "among other things?" Edited July 28, 2018 by Exiled
Bernard Gui Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 22 minutes ago, Exiled said: So, are the ward members going to come forward and give their side of the story? Surely they could come on this forum or somewhere else? Anyway, what do they mean by excessive nudity, and "among other things?" Would it be appropriate for her to purposely go into the priests group meeting or into the interview with the bishop and do her thing? If just to make her point, whatever that is?
Exiled Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Would it be appropriate for her to purposely go into the priests group meeting or into the interview with the bishop and do her thing? If just to make her point, whatever that is? I think discretion should be the name of the game in these matters. Also, people should realize that breastfeeding is part of life and not get too excited about it when it occurs. There should be some happy medium that can resolve this "major" issue.
Recommended Posts