Bill Reel’s Conference Predictions

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I see a difference. If you don't, I suppose we'll have to disagree.

Can you explain the difference between deacons passing and the rest of the congregation passing? The only difference I see is that the deacons receive the tray from the priest and return it to the priest. Otherwise, it's all just passing a tray...and of course the left hand held behind the back

 

Edited October 3, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You guys might be too young to know this but there were no announcements or anything about the major Temple changes in 1990, at least not that I was aware of.

I heard it from my friends first. Then I went to the temple and got the shock.

It was then that I learned about the difference between the endowment and the presentation of the endowment.

Big difference.

 

My very TBM & stalwart temple going sister told me that it was because the males were getting much to close to the females and it was causing some problems. It was the portion of the endowment at the veil. Maybe they had many members anonomously saying how uncomfortable that part was on the surveys sent to members prior to the changes. 

Edited October 3, 2018 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Can you explain the difference between deacons passing and the rest of the congregation passing? The only difference I see is that the deacons receive the tray from the priest and return it to the priest. Otherwise, it's all just passing a tray...and of course the left hand held behind the back

 

The deacons are fulfilling a commission given to them as part of their duties in the priesthood. Passing the tray to your neighbor (or carrying it into the mother's lounge) is facilitating the action in a way that cannot otherwise be reasonably or conveniently carried out.

I don't really want to get into a prolonged back-and-forth about this, so you may have the last word, if you want it.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Avatar4321]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

He's still a member.

It's also true that you can leave the church but the church won't leave you alone.  That one plays out every week in ward councils across the world.

Have you truly left the church if you haven’t had your name removed?

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My very TBM & stalwart temple going sister told me that it was because the males were getting much to close to the females and it was causing some problems. It was the portion of the endowment at the veil. Maybe they had many members anonomously saying how uncomfortable that part was on the surveys sent to members prior to the changes. 

I know what you mean and that was one minor change among major changes. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I don't see anything too awfully revolutionary about this, considering that the sacrament tray is routinely passed from person to person on a row in the chapel to facilitate the passing of the sacrament. Not a whole lot of difference between that and asking a sister to carry the tray to those sitting in the mother's lounge.

I agree, it wouldn’t be revolutionary at all. But since it’s not currently allowed it would definitely be a change. 

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree, it wouldn’t be revolutionary at all. But since it’s not currently allowed it would definitely be a change. 

But from the quotation from Eric Hawkins (Church Public Affairs spokesman) in the Trib piece that Duncan cited, I got the impression it is allowed. Was Hawkins wrong?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The deacons are fulfilling a commission given to them as part of their duties in the priesthood. Passing the tray to your neighbor (or carrying it into the mother's lounge) is facilitating the action in a way that cannot otherwise be reasonably or conveniently carried out. 

 Except that passing the sacrament is only a Deacons duty by administrative policy.  It is neither scriptural nor established by revelation.  Which is why it hasn't been a constant in Church history.

And policies are easily changed.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

Have you truly left the church if you haven’t had your name removed?

Yes. 

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 Except that passing the sacrament is only a Deacons duty by administrative policy.  It is neither scriptural nor established by revelation.  Which is why it hasn't been a constant in Church history.

And policies are easily changed.

Are you asserting there was no heavenly inspiration involved in it?

Because for me, if a directive has been divinely ordained, quibbling over whether it is a "policy" or something else strikes me as silly.

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But from the quotation from Eric Hawkins (Church Public Affairs spokesman) in the Trib piece that Duncan cited, I got the impression it is allowed. Was Hawkins wrong?

I've never been in a ward where it was done.  If it's allowed they haven't told anyone that.  The only other option is that bishops know it's allowed but they have not told anyone about it or made provisions for it to be accomplished because they don't believe it's that important.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, halconero said:

I do strongly believe we are entering into a preparatory period for further revelation. As one friend put it, we may very well be on the cusp of Moses going back up the mountain. While I do believe there may be some streamlining around policies, facilitating worship, I also believe there will be directions that will be hard for members to receive.

Things I consider to be possibilities, perhaps not at this conference, but sometime in the future:

1. Dissolving overlay wards.

2. Elevate the position of Elders Quorum President and Relief Society Presidents to be somewhat co-equal with the Bishop in conducting  temple recommend interviews, and setting people apart. Yes, even Relief Society presidents setting people apart.

3. Increased adherence to the Word of Wisdom, including provisions regarding the eating of meat.

4. Increased adherence to the law of the fast.

5. Changing the temple recommend question regarding affiliation with groups whose teachings run contrary to those of the church, to belief in teachings which run contrary to those of the church.

5a. That may affect progressive members with a belief in same-sex marriage, as well as members whose stances don't align with Church immigration policy.

6. Bishops will take over the interviewing of perspective converts.

I also believe there will come a day, perhaps not to far off, where the Lord commands his people to live particularly hard commandments, and take particularly controversial stances. I would also not be surprised if the leaders of the Church are commanded to begin living these before the general memberships, perhaps in a way which will try both the leaders and the members if/when they become public. That's all I'll say on that.

If Bill Reel’s list is the “progressive Mormon” wish list than this one is the “conservative Mormon” or maybe even “fundamentalist Mormon” wishlist. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you asserting there was no heavenly inspiration involved in it?

Because for me, if a directive has been divinely ordained, quibbling over whether it is a "policy" or something else strikes me as silly.

Do you have a reference to it being divinely ordained?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Do you have a reference to it being divinely ordained?

My default assumption is that measures and procedures established under the direction of the apostles and prophets are done so with divine approbation, as that's how the Savior does things in His church.

Do you have a reference showing it was not divinely ordained?

 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

If Bill Reel’s list is the “progressive Mormon” wish list than this one is the “conservative Mormon” or maybe even “fundamentalist Mormon” wishlist. 

Other than #2. Nothing conservative about making the EQP and RSP the new bishop, and the bishop the new clerk. 

I don't think anyone's concerned about #1. They've devoted so much into making these YSA wards and stakes, I can't see them dissolving them anytime soon. If President Packer couldn't bring that to pass, no one today feels that strongly about it (I think). 

Temple recommend question changes would just appear in the book, accompanied by a letter. No reason to think they would be announced in conference. 

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you asserting there was no heavenly inspiration involved in it?

Because for me, if a directive has been divinely ordained, quibbling over whether it is a "policy" or something else strikes me as silly.

 Are you suggesting that our default position in the absence of a record of divine inspiration is to assume it came?  Because that seems far more silly.

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes. 

A person who chooses to leave her/his name on the Church's membership list has already chosen to be discussed in ward council and reached out to. The solution is simple. I have never once been in a ward council where we discussed a person who had actually formally left the Church. 

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've never been in a ward where it was done.  If it's allowed they haven't told anyone that.  The only other option is that bishops know it's allowed but they have not told anyone about it or made provisions for it to be accomplished because they don't believe it's that important.

If Eric Hawkins, acting in his role as Church spokesman, asserts that it is appropriate, I have to believe, barring compelling evidence to the contrary, that he speaks authoritatively. That is, after all, what public affairs spokesmen do.

 

Edited October 4, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 Are you suggesting that our default position in the absence of a record of divine inspiration is to assume it came?

It's more than my suggestion. It's my heartfelt belief.

Quote

 Because that seems far more silly.

And therein we differ.

 

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My default assumption is that measures and procedures established under the direction of the apostles and prophets are done so with divine approbation, as that's how the Savior does things in His church.

Do you have a reference showing it was not divinely ordained?

 

Nope, there appears to be no evidence one way or the other. 

I’m in the camp of believing there is no doctrinal reason that the Prophet couldn’t have the young women pass the sacrament.  

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

A person who chooses to leave her/his name on the Church's membership list has already chosen to be discussed in ward council and reached out to. The solution is simple. I have never once been in a ward council where we discussed a person who had actually formally left the Church. 

The comment I was responding to was about Bill Reel and the implication that he can leave the church but cannot leave the church alone.  He has not had his name removed so by your definition, he hasn’t left the church. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Nope, there appears to be no evidence one way or the other. 

I’m in the camp of believing there is no doctrinal reason that the Prophet couldn’t have the young women pass the sacrament.  

I've said it before: When faced with a choice, I cast my lot with the prophets and apostles.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've said it before: When faced with a choice, I cast my lot with the prophets and apostles.

You’ll note that I said it was something the Prophet could do. 

And I cast my lot with the Lord. 

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's more than my suggestion. It's my heartfelt belief.

And therein we differ.

 

Yes we do.  I believe in sustaining our leadership, in following them as they follow God, and I accept revelation that comes through them.

But as Joseph clearly taught a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.  And I don't presume they are getting inspiration in every decision all the time in every administrative decision when they themselves give no such indications.

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The comment I was responding to was about Bill Reel and the implication that he can leave the church but cannot leave the church alone.  He has not had his name removed so by your definition, he hasn’t left the church. 

Correct. He hasn't left the Church, and at this point, the Church hasn't excommunicated him. I feel reasonably confident that if either of these situations changes, we'll all hear about it.

You're the one who claimed that a person can leave the Church without formally removing her/his name after having made the following observation:

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

It's also true that you can leave the church but the church won't leave you alone.  That one plays out every week in ward councils across the world.

This is nonsense.

I recently signed up to receive email notifications from my favourite discount chemist. They now have my name on their list. I wanted to receive notifications of specials, but I'm starting to wonder if they maybe don't email me a bit too often (nearly every day!). Solution: I remove my name from their email list. Leaving my name on their list but grumbling about how they just won't leave me alone is illogical and childish.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan