RevTestament Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Gray said: Not everything is about your kook right anti-American politics. We're in danger of making the thread political, but I'm not kook right to be tired of listening to these commentators calling Trump fascist. It's ridiculousness. I don't like the guy, but fascist? Gimme a break. It's an epidemic on college campuses it seems - everyone conservative is "fascist." It's really rather juvenile and counter-productive to engage in these tribal identity politics - and that is one reason I don't like Trump - he does it too. Quote The threat in this case is the threat of losing one's temple recommend, and ultimately one's exaltation. But if you think "manipulation" is somehow better, have at it I guess? It is somewhat a matter of semantics, so I give up. If you feel you are being "coerced" who am I to believe this overly dramatic? I am just a guy with a dictionary. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: Right. Just like an egg just "absolutely" a cake. Except . . . it's not. An egg is an ingredient to a cake, not the cake in toto. So you are using an ideosyncratic definition. Got it. Not sustaining the general authorities is not an excommunicable offense. There must be more than that. Much more, in fact. He was excommunicated for more than that. Much more, in fact. Again, not sustaining the general authorities is not an excommunicable offense. This isn't even a "reasonable minds can disagree about it" kind of thing. You are simply wrong. Thanks, -Smac I think you're the one using an idiosyncratic definition. You're describing a preschool version of what it means to sustain a leader. I raised my hand. Sustained. Done. That's laughable. Truly sustaining a leader (or not) is about what one does and says. Sam Young did and said things that showed he was not sustaining his leaders, thus making him an apostate. He was then ex'd for apostasy. What other definitions of apostasy fit his case. How else could he have been considered apostate, but not for failing to sustain church leaders? Quote Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders. Yep- that's exactly what he did. It was failure to sustain leaders by publicly opposing them. Quote 2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority. I'm not aware that he ever taught any false doctrine that he claimed was official church doctrine. His views may have been unorthodox, but he never represented his positions as Church doctrine. Quote 3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority. I'm not aware that he followed any teachings of apostate sects. So that doesn't apply either Quote 4. Are in a same-gender marriage. Nope. That doesn't apply either. Quote 5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings. Nope. Didn't do that. So how was Sam Young an apostate. Clearly the only reason he could be convicted of apostasy was for failure of #1. That is failure to sustain. Sam Young was an apostate of church leadership. Nowhere near the level of being apostate to God or Jesus, IMO. He was apostate to the authority of men Edited October 23, 2018 by HappyJackWagon 1
The Nehor Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, RevTestament said: We're in danger of making the thread political, but I'm not kook right to be tired of listening to these commentators calling Trump fascist. It's ridiculousness. I don't like the guy, but fascist? Gimme a break. It's an epidemic on college campuses it seems - everyone conservative is "fascist." It's really rather juvenile and counter-productive to engage in these tribal identity politics - and that is one reason I don't like Trump - he does it too. It is somewhat a matter of semantics, so I give up. If you feel you are being "coerced" who am I to believe this overly dramatic? I am just a guy with a dictionary. Then he should stop using the language and tactics of fascism and people will eventually stop. 2
Gray Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 9 minutes ago, RevTestament said: We're in danger of making the thread political, but I'm not kook right to be tired of listening to these commentators calling Trump fascist. It's ridiculousness. I don't like the guy, but fascist? Gimme a break. It's an epidemic on college campuses it seems - everyone conservative is "fascist." It's really rather juvenile and counter-productive to engage in these tribal identity politics - and that is one reason I don't like Trump - he does it too. Methinks the lady doth protest too much 9 minutes ago, RevTestament said: It is somewhat a matter of semantics, so I give up. If you feel you are being "coerced" who am I to believe this overly dramatic? I am just a guy with a dictionary. You can lead the horse to the dictionary, but you can't make him rant about political correctness. 1
smac97 Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I think you're the one using an idiosyncratic definition. No. I'm using the commonly-understood definition. See, e.g., here: Quote We have an opportunity to sustain—support, help, pray for—each of these people in their callings. We indicate our willingness to do so by raising our right hands when their names are read to us in general conference, stake conference, ward or branch conference, or sacrament meeting. Raising our hands is a sign to us, to them, and to the Lord that we will sustain them. Raising our hands to sustain someone is not like voting that person into office. The person has already been called by the Lord to serve in that calling by one who has the priesthood authority to extend such a calling. Our sustaining is a vote of confidence in the person, because we recognize that he or she has been called of God through priesthood leaders we sustain. We can sustain the General Authorities and our local leaders and officers in several ways: By our faith and prayers in their behalf. By following their counsel. By helping when they ask us. By accepting callings they extend to us. That sounds about right. Nobody is excommunicated for not exercising "faith and prayers" on behalf of the leaders of the Church. Nobody is excommunicated for not "following their counsel" (except for extraordinary and extreme cases, such as would implicate "apostasy" as defined in Section 6.7.3 of Handbook 1). Nobody is excommunicated for not "helping when they [general authorities] ask us." Nobody is excommunicated for not "accepting callings." Quote You're describing a preschool version of what it means to sustain a leader. Nope. I'm describing the normative version of what it means. Sam Young went way, way beyond that, and went well into "apostasy" territory. Quote I raised my hand. Sustained. Done. That's laughable. Truly sustaining a leader (or not) is about what one does and says. Sam Young did and said things that showed he was not sustaining his leaders, thus making him an apostate. He was then ex'd for apostasy. What other definitions of apostasy fit his case. How else could he have been considered apostate, but not for failing to sustain church leaders? How else? By "repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders." Quote Yep- that's exactly what he did. It was failure to sustain leaders by publicly opposing them. Oh, brother. Quote So how was Sam Young an apostate. Clearly the only reason he could be convicted of apostasy was for failure of #1. That is failure to sustain. No. He went well beyond a "failure to sustain." He "repeatedly act[ed] in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders." Thanks, -Smac Edited October 24, 2018 by smac97 2
RevTestament Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 15 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Then he should stop using the language and tactics of fascism and people will eventually stop. using tribal identity politics is not fascist - over the last several decades it's been the domain of leftists... until Trump that is. It is really just calling people names.... it is the old tried and "true" ad hominem attack. I believe it is ashame Trump stoops to the same level as leftists. It is bad for national politics.
HappyJackWagon Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 7 minutes ago, smac97 said: No. I'm using the commonly-understood definition. See, e.g., here: That sounds about right. Nobody is excommunicated for not exercising "faith and prayers" on behalf of the leaders of the Church. Nobody is excommunicated for not "following their counsel" (except for extraordinary and extreme cases, such as would implicate "apostasy" as defined in Section 6.7.3 of Handbook 1). Nobody is excommunicated for not "helping when they [general authorities] ask us." Nobody is excommunicated for not "accepting callings." Nope. I'm describing the normative version of what it means. Sam Young went way, way beyond that, and went well into "apostasy" territory. How else? By "repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders." Oh, brother. No. He went well beyond a "failure to sustain." He "repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders." Thanks, -Smac "Nobody is excommunicated for not following" counsel (except for extraordinary and extreme cases). So you admit that some people ARE excommunicated for not following counsel. The only thing you seem to be arguing is that the church doesn't state they are excommunicating someone for "failure to sustain". They are ex'd for "apostasy" as evidenced by failure to sustain. In addition to #1 being about sustaining, I would argue that #3 (3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority) is also in part about a failure to sustain because a person is considered apostate after failing to obey a leader after being corrected. Again, it's about sustaining a leader's authority but you want to call it something different, though I can't understand why. Maybe ex'ing someone for failure to sustain sounds more petty than ex'ing for apostasy so that description should be avoided?
The Nehor Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, RevTestament said: using tribal identity politics is not fascist - over the last several decades it's been the domain of leftists... until Trump that is. It is really just calling people names.... it is the old tried and "true" ad hominem attack. I believe it is ashame Trump stoops to the same level as leftists. It is bad for national politics. It is not an ad hominem if you are dealing with an actual authoritarian fascist. It is a shame. People have been calling each other fascists and Nazis and Hitler for so long that when an actual bonafide authoritarian fascist comes along no one believes it. I really need to write a children’s book called: “The Boy who Cried Hitler”. Edited October 23, 2018 by The Nehor 1
smac97 Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: "Nobody is excommunicated for not following" counsel (except for extraordinary and extreme cases). So you admit that some people ARE excommunicated for not following counsel. No. "Extraordinary and extreme cases" go well beyond not sustaining the leaders of the Church. 8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: In addition to #1 being about sustaining, I would argue that #3 (3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority) is also in part about a failure to sustain because a person is considered apostate after failing to obey a leader after being corrected. "In part" being the operative wording. 8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Again, it's about sustaining a leader's authority but you want to call it something different, though I can't understand why. I want to call it something more. An egg is an ingredient in a cake, but we can't call it "a cake" by itself. Not sustaining the leaders of the Church is an ingredient in some forms of apostasy, but we can't call it "apostasy" by itself. Thanks, -Smac
RevTestament Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: It is not an ad hominem if you are dealing with an actual authoritarian fascist. It is a shame. People have been calling each other fascists and Nazis and Hitler for so long that when an actual bonafide authoritarian fascist comes along no one believes it. I really need to write a children’s book called: “The Boy who Cried Hitler”. Ha. You might get some sympathy votes if the Left didn't call everyone who opposes them fascist - it is really tiresome. Trump is just a class A ultra Type A personality with bouts of ego-mania. I reserve the diagnosis of fascism for true Hitlers and Mussolinis. True fascism is probably best characterized by forced patriotism. Calling conservatives fascist because you don't like them is really just the ad hominem model of identity politics. Have fun.
The Nehor Posted October 24, 2018 Posted October 24, 2018 2 hours ago, RevTestament said: Ha. You might get some sympathy votes if the Left didn't call everyone who opposes them fascist - it is really tiresome. Trump is just a class A ultra Type A personality with bouts of ego-mania. I reserve the diagnosis of fascism for true Hitlers and Mussolinis. True fascism is probably best characterized by forced patriotism. Calling conservatives fascist because you don't like them is really just the ad hominem model of identity politics. Have fun. Forced patriotism like calling for coercive measures to force people to a specific show of respect to the flag? Don’t forget the autocratic tendencies. Like being convinced that your staff owes loyalty to you above their nation and lamenting that they will not throw away their sense of justice and fair play to protect you. He is fascist. He is just fortunately terrible at it. 1
jpv Posted October 24, 2018 Posted October 24, 2018 On 10/17/2018 at 1:44 AM, Avatar4321 said: I routinely answer no when I'm asked if I affiliated with any groups that oppose the Church and still obtain my Recommend. i doubt I would if I said yes I usually say Yes: BSA and Republican party
CV75 Posted October 24, 2018 Posted October 24, 2018 16 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I agree. And the value may simply be, avoiding punishment. Yes, and I think to put a finer point on it, avoiding the known consequences that were recognized with prior consent to the conditions of membership.
HappyJackWagon Posted October 24, 2018 Posted October 24, 2018 (edited) 42 minutes ago, CV75 said: Yes, and I think to put a finer point on it, avoiding the known consequences that were recognized with prior consent to the conditions of membership. True. Everyone knows that a person must sustain their leaders under consequence of losing their access to the temple. So when a sustaining vote is called for, there is only one proper response. Everyone knows the consequence for casting the wrong vote. Vote to sustain the leader or else. I think Putin would be impressed Just because someone knows the consequence before hand doesn't mean the consequence is just and it can in fact be coercive. Edited October 24, 2018 by HappyJackWagon
CV75 Posted October 24, 2018 Posted October 24, 2018 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: True. Everyone knows that a person must sustain their leaders under consequence of losing their access to the temple. So when a sustaining vote is called for, there is only one proper response. Everyone knows the consequence for casting the wrong vote. Vote to sustain the leader or else. I think Putin would be impressed Just because someone knows the consequence before hand doesn't mean the consequence is just and it can in fact be coercive. Because someone assents to the consequence beforehand by virtue of his voluntary membership, in other words has given his consent to abide the consequences, disciplinary consequence is in fact not coercive. It may feel coercive but this sensation is misidentified. I think it is really the sting of dilemma, and diverting responsibility for resolution to the system, the bishop, etc. This includes deciding whether the terms of membership are just, and sometimes a member has to decide if he can sustain these terms and act accordingly, a personal decision and part of his consent to those terms. I don't think a practice is coercive if a person chooses to be part of the community that abides governing principles and judges, in this case those that pertain to the issuing of temple recommends.
theplains Posted October 24, 2018 Posted October 24, 2018 On 10/16/2018 at 10:03 PM, changed said: I said "No" to: 3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days? (this is also a testimony in the apostasy - I do not like the idea of God leaving the entire world in darkness for hundreds of years, of turning His back on everyone.) I agree with you. It runs against the promise of a victorious church (Matthew 16:18). That is why I don't believe the 1997 Gospel Principles teaching - "The perfect organization of the Church no longer existed, and confusion resulted. More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the destruction of the Church was complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the Great Apostasy." Jim 1
Recommended Posts