bluebell Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 2 hours ago, rockpond said: To never disagree with the FP seems to imply an infallibility that I don’t believe in. I didn’t say we couldn’t disagree.
carbon dioxide Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 2 hours ago, ALarson said: I believe that one can disagree with the first presidency regarding certain issues or policies and still sustain them. Do you disagree? Also, disagreeing does not mean one is "against" them, IMO. I could agree with that. A 4 star general may not agree with the President of the USA on a number of decisions but still sustain the President even if he thinks he is wrong. It is also possible that one might disagree with the First Presidency on an issue and later discover that the First Presidency was not wrong at all. We should always be humble in our views that though we are passionate on an issue, that we might one day discover that we were in error. 3
carbon dioxide Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 22 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Yep. Back when I was still a PhD student, a member of our ward decided to leave the Church over the issue of gay marriage. In doing so, he vocally told everyone to back off and let him go. So we did. Months later, he stopped by my place and started to complain vehemently about what hypocritical fake friends we all were because no one had reached out to him. I reminded him that he had told us that that's what he wanted. I pointed out that we were just genuinely respecting his agency. But he wouldn't be satisfied. I'm 100% confident that if we'd kept reaching out to him against his wishes, he would have been complaining on some internet forum somewhere that we wouldn't respect his boundaries. In some cases, one just can't win. Perhaps his desire was to have people pester him and then use that to complain to others about. Sounds like that is a person who is in need of drama for their life. They find meaning in conflict.
rockpond Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 9 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Perhaps his desire was to have people pester him and then use that to complain to others about. Sounds like that is a person who is in need of drama for their life. They find meaning in conflict. Maybe he meant that he wanted to leave the church (and not be bothered about it) but he didn’t want to leave the circle of friends. 2
rockpond Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 20 minutes ago, bluebell said: I didn’t say we couldn’t disagree. Great! 1
Calm Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 (edited) As far as I am certain add-on: close, not bad for a guess Edited September 20, 2018 by Calm
Bernard Gui Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, rockpond said: I don’t justify lying to accept a calling or get a recommend. The Prophet is designated to be the Lord’s spokesman. And we’re all callled to be His disciples. But there’s only one perfect person. ps. I tried searching several times and could not figure out what IFAIAC sounds for. My question was generic....how does one justify....? I don't think one can, but apparently folks you know do. How do they do that? Oh..... As Far As I Am Concerned. Edited September 20, 2018 by Bernard Gui
rockpond Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: My question was generic....how does one justify....? I don't think one can, but apparently folks you know do. How do they do that? Oh..... As Far As I Am Concerned. They probably aren’t lying... just choosing what to emphasize (like the Church has done — see the 9-Sept Devotional).
Hamba Tuhan Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Maybe he meant that he wanted to leave the church (and not be bothered about it) but he didn’t want to leave the circle of friends. Oh, we kept inviting him to purely social things in the very beginning, but he said he didn’t want to come unless we promised not to discuss anything Church related. After awhile, we gave up. Edited September 20, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan
Bernard Gui Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 21 minutes ago, rockpond said: They probably aren’t lying... just choosing what to emphasize (like the Church has done — see the 9-Sept Devotional). Please explain how one can not believe in the truth claims of the Church and answer yes in a temple recommend interview or accept a calling where they will be expected to teach something they reject and don't believe. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, rockpond said: Maybe he meant that he wanted to leave the church (and not be bothered about it) but he didn’t want to leave the circle of friends. That's possible, I suppose. But all we have to go on at this juncture is the account from Hamba Tuhan, who said: Quote I'm 100% confident that if we'd kept reaching out to him against his wishes, he would have been complaining on some internet forum somewhere that we wouldn't respect his boundaries. In some cases, one just can't win. Now, I readily acknowledge the reality of the possibility that Hamba, in his informed opinion, is wrong and that you in your pure conjecture are right. But, if compelled to choose, I will in this instance, lean toward the opinion of Hamba, not only because he is recounting an incident which he personally witnessed and in which he was personally involved, but because through past observation, I have come to trust his judgment. Edited September 20, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: That's possible, I suppose. But all we have to go on at this juncture is the account from Hamba Tuhan, who said: Now, I readily acknowledge the reality of the possibility that Hamba, in his informed opinion, is wrong and that you in your pure conjecture are right. But, if compelled to choose, I will in this instance, lean toward the opinion of Hamba, not only because he is recounting an incident which he personally witnessed and he was personally involved, but because through past observation, I have come to trust his judgment. I don’t think my comment deserved that level of snarkiness in reply. Hamba’s original comment wasn’t abundantly clear to me. I wasn’t trying to say Hamba was necessarily wrong. Edited September 20, 2018 by rockpond
rockpond Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 22 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Please explain how one can not believe in the truth claims of the Church and answer yes in a temple recommend interview or accept a calling where they will be expected to teach something they reject and don't believe. Belief in all the truth claims of the church is not necessary for a temple recommend (they aren’t all asked) not to accept a calling where one teaches.
Bernard Gui Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 (edited) 27 minutes ago, rockpond said: Belief in all the truth claims of the church is not necessary for a temple recommend (they aren’t all asked) not to accept a calling where one teaches. 3, 4, 6, 8, 13, 15...optional? How could one honestly be worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in ordinances one believes to be meaningless, deluded, or false? I'm really trying hard to understand this line of thinking. How could one honestly teach others in a religious situation something one does not believe? I would never presume to teach Catholicism in a Catholic Church or Judaism in a synagogue. How would that work in an LDS setting? 1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost? 2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer? 3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days? 4 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? 5 Do you live the law of chastity? 6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church? 7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? 8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel? 9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen? 10 Are you a full-tithe payer? 11 Do your keep the Word of Wisdom? 12 Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations? 13 If you have previously received your temple endowment: a) Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple? b) Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple? 14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been? 15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances Edited September 20, 2018 by Bernard Gui 3
Scott Lloyd Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 27 minutes ago, rockpond said: I don’t think my comment deserved that level of snarkiness in reply. Hamba’s original comment wasn’t abundantly clear to me. I wasn’t trying to say Hamba was necessarily wrong. I didn't think my reply was snarky. It wasn't intended to be. I'm sorry it came across that way to you. 1
rockpond Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said: 3, 4, 6, 8, 13, 15...optional? I'm really trying hard to understand this line of thinking. 1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost? 2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer? 3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days? 4 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? 5 Do you live the law of chastity? 6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church? 7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? 8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel? 9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen? 10 Are you a full-tithe payer? 11 Do your keep the Word of Wisdom? 12 Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations? 13 If you have previously received your temple endowment: a) Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple? b) Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple? 14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been? 15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances How could one honestly be worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in ordinances one believes to be meaningless or false? Think of the truth claims that aren’t mentioned in these questions: The one and only true church. Historicity of the Book of Mormon. The First Vision. Prophet can’t lead the Church astray.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, rockpond said: Think of the truth claims that aren’t mentioned in these questions: The one and only true church. Historicity of the Book of Mormon. The First Vision. Prophet can’t lead the Church astray. I believe, properly understood and articulated, these concepts are incorporated within the temple recommend interview questions. Edited September 20, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 3
rockpond Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I believe, properly understood and articulated, these concepts are incorporated within the temple recommend interview questions. If that is the case for you, than I would encourage you to answer them accordingly. Edited September 20, 2018 by rockpond
Scott Lloyd Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: If that is the case for you, than I would encourage you to answer them accordingly. I think it the case for everybody.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 11 hours ago, rongo said: I strongly agree that this is a far worse problem than resignation. I have referred to it before as a drop in intensity, enthusiasm, and commitment. There is a conservative counterpart, too. If, say, the Church were to officially condemn the priesthood ban itself, or declare that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are non-historical but still inspired in some way, I wouldn't leave the Church. But my enthusiasm and commitment would take a big hit. As a family that has been extremely active and which has given the Church a lot, this would hurt. Multiply that by X number of others, and you get an impact. Sam Young and his movement affect a segment this same way. I don't think this segment is nearly the sort of "mavens" that people like my family would be if we de-coupled from Church service and engagement. For some (some here, in fact), the Church's policies and practices with interviews, male authority, not condemning the ban, etc. are just as dismaying, and if they haven't left the Church, they are not as enthused or committed. Some of these get whipped up in a frenzy by a single issue and make a snap decision to formally resign. I wonder if any of these snap decision resignees regret their decision, and wish they wouldn't have reacted so emotionally. What I suspect happens is they enter a period of sustained confirmation bias as a defense mechanism against such regret for the snap decision they made. They become voracious consumers of anti-Mormon material, or devotees of prominent hostile critics. They hop on each new controversy bandwagon or they take up the cause du jour that they think will bring discomfort to the Church or its leaders. Virtually every criticism against the Church becomes eminently sensible to them, and they become inured to even reasoned rebuttals. They vilify prominent “apologists” for the Church, and that very word becomes a slur on their lips. They lose a sense of proper perspective when regarding perceived flaws in Church leaders, members, history, teaching, policies, administrative structure, so that even petty blemishes, occasional lapses in judgment, misspoken expressions, etc., are magnified into egregious evils. 1
Exiled Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: What I suspect happens is they enter a period of sustained confirmation bias as a defense mechanism against such regret for the snap decision they made. They become voracious consumers of anti-Mormon material, or devotees of prominent hostile critics. They hop on each new controversy bandwagon or they take up the cause du jour that they think will bring discomfort to the Church or its leaders. Virtually every criticism against the Church becomes eminently sensible to them, and they become inured to even reasoned rebuttals. They vilify prominent “apologists” for the Church, and that very word becomes a slur on their lips. They lose a sense of proper perspective when regarding perceived flaws in Church leaders, members, history, teaching, policies, administrative structure, so that even petty blemishes, occasional lapses in judgment, misspoken expressions, etc., are magnified into egregious evils. I think you would have a better position if there were better evidence for the church's truth claims. As it stands, there isn't any good evidence for book of mormon historicity. One needs a lot of faith to sustain continued belief in historicity given the lack of anything supporting real nephites or actual lamanites today. This is just one issue of a multitude. Another is the first vision where one personage appears in the 1832 account and two appear in 1838. That's a contradiction that is hard to reconcile for a lot of people. One may become angry or bitter because of this policy or that and then start to look at historical issues in depth. However, it doesn't take long to become justified in unbelief. I could see your position being plausible if there weren't so many issues like the above. The book of abraham is another. The facsimilies cast doubt on any translation from the papyri and the book itself appears contrived the more one looks into the cosmology, for example, or if one knows the history of the chaldeans. So, it really should be viewed as one would a dissenter in another religion. That person is justified in not automatically believing whatever the leaders of that religion say because their truth claims are suspect. One then must look at policies and proceedures as one would look at any man made organization.
rockpond Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think it the case for everybody. I’m able to assure you that it’s not.
Gray Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 17 hours ago, Calm said: You think they aren't being taught to report to teachers now? I'm not aware of anything formal that tells kids generally who to report to (from any source). YMMV.
Gray Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 17 hours ago, Calm said: And you dictating this will influence children to do so how? Most of the bishops I have known it wouldn't even occur to them to think of the "good name" of the Church if a child was being abused. I do believe training could always be improved upon. I don't see reporting to a teacher as a magic bullet. And yet estimated 84% of cases go unreported by them. https://academic.oup.com/her/article/23/6/941/556308 I've seen too many examples of Bishops keeping it "in house" to avoid confrontation and scandal. I suspect the report rate for teachers, even if low, is higher than for bishops.
Gray Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: What about frequency of parental abuse? I’m guessing that happens more requently than abuse by bishops. Doesn’t that call for an outcry for “two-deep” supervision of parental interaction with children if one is going to insist on it with bishops? Parents have much more access to their children, by default. So if a parent is an abuser they will have ample time to abuse. I don't know of a good solution to prevent that. All solutions seem to involve intervention after the fact.
Recommended Posts