Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 12 minutes ago, ALarson said: I know many who are serving in leadership positions. You do too but you just don't know it 😛 I don’t think you know enough about me to make such a claim. You can make a guess, but that’s all it would be.
Joe Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: So are you what you claim to be by holding a 'prominent stake calling' despite being a clandestine unbeliever? I believe in God and the teachings of Jesus Christ. It turns out there is plenty to teach about Jesus without Joseph Smith. I don't profess belief in Joseph Smith at the pulpit, and stay true to what I claim to believe. 2
ALarson Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don’t think you know enough about me to make such a claim. You can make a guess, but that’s all it would be. I was just teasing you a bit. But, there are many who are serving in leadership positions with all different types of testimonies and beliefs (even in your area ). And, I see those numbers growing as more members are exposed to some of the more difficult aspects from church history, polygamy, the Book of Abraham and a very long list of other issues good members are struggling over. Add to that the new policies that involve the gays and other social issues and many members testimonies are changing and evolving. The leaders know this too as they are speaking more and more to those members. Edited February 7, 2019 by ALarson
MustardSeed Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 Good grief. Its one one thing to discuss a concept and a theory (“I need all my Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints prominent position holders to have strong testimonies in Joseph Smith’s vision and mission”) and “you need to resign your position, you aren’t worthy”. ***This is my opinion**** 1. Nobody’s story is over 2. If someone teaches or influences false doctrine, it is generally handled. Most of ****our **** primary and Sunday school teachers have more influence than anyone else in that hour and many of them are , dare I say, second tier (not typical candidates for leadership positions) with likely many odd or false or even anti ideas. 3. Look at all the quiet members of your ward. I guarantee slow waters run deep. ****it is my opinion based on conversations I have had****that not everyone has a grounded testimony of Joseph Smith’s supernatural holy experience and mission. Many just don’t think about it, and they come because they love the gospel. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 28 minutes ago, jpv said: The Temple was was only ambiguous on this from 1990 to 2018, now it's very clear. It was always clear to those not inclined to engage in lexical duplicity. 1
ALarson Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You say, “Gone are the days when <all> members” accept Church teachings. I don’t think there ever were such days. Oh, I agree. But you changed my quote with your addition. I said when all members believed this is the only true church on the face of the earth. Not that all members accept church teachings. But I agree that we should all stop speaking as if this topic is black and white. It isn't. 1
jpv Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 (edited) On 1/29/2019 at 8:12 AM, ALarson said: It was always clear to those not inclined to engage in lexical duplicity. It was always clear to those not inclined to engage in lexical duplicity. Right, just making the point that indeed it would be a change to the Law of Chastity, even if you're going to be lexically duplicitous, for most of the dispensation. The changes only make that clear. Edited February 7, 2019 by jpv
jpv Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 Was anybody else surprised in the article that a self-proclaimed scriptorian like the Hornedog was unaware that the fullness of the priesthood can only be bestowed on a male-female couple
Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: Good grief. Its one one thing to discuss a concept and a theory (“I need all my Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints prominent position holders to have strong testimonies in Joseph Smith’s vision and mission”) and “you need to resign your position, you aren’t worthy”. ***This is my opinion**** 1. Nobody’s story is over 2. If someone teaches or influences false doctrine, it is generally handled. Most of ****our **** primary and Sunday school teachers have more influence than anyone else in that hour and many of them are , dare I say, second tier (not typical candidates for leadership positions) with likely many odd or false or even anti ideas. 3. Look at all the quiet members of your ward. I guarantee slow waters run deep. ****it is my opinion based on conversations I have had****that not everyone has a grounded testimony of Joseph Smith’s supernatural holy experience and mission. Many just don’t think about it, and they come because they love the gospel. Good grief yourself. Carrying on a charade of fidelity is never appropriate for one occupying certain positions in the Church. And anonymously proclaiming it on an Internet message board makes it worse. 1
ALarson Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, jpv said: Was anybody else surprised in the article that a self-proclaimed scriptorian like the Hornedog was unaware that the fullness of the priesthood can only be bestowed on a male-female couple The Second Anointing? I don't know who the Hornedog is....do you have a link? Edited February 7, 2019 by ALarson
Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 6 minutes ago, ALarson said: Oh, I agree. But you changed my quote with your addition. I said when all members believed this is the only true church on the face of the earth. Not that all members accept church teachings. But I agree that we should all stop speaking as if this topic is black and white. It isn't. I didn’t intentionally change the meaning of your words. I was only trying to paraphrase. And I didn’t change your quote. Note the placement of quotation marks. And I think it quite clearcut that it is wrong to feign fidelity to Church teachings to remain in a position one ought not to hold where such fidelity is prerequisite.
ALarson Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I didn’t intentionally change the meaning of your words. I was only trying to paraphrase. And I didn’t change your quote. Note the placement of quotation marks. I didn't say that you did (I specified "your addition"). But you did change the meaning. Members can still accept church teachings but not believe it is the only true church on the face of the earth. 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: And I think it quite clearcut that it is wrong to feign fidelity to Church teachings to remain in a position one ought not to hold where such fidelity is prerequisite. Ok. You have every right to your opinion. However, the truth is that members are currently being called to leadership positions with all variations of testimonies. That is something you can't change and is also something that is a natural consequence of what is currently going on within the church. Just because a member no longer believes as they used to believe, it does not make them unworthy to serve. That's up to their leaders anyway....it's not up to you to pass judgement on them. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 21 minutes ago, ALarson said: I was just teasing you a bit. But, there are many who are serving in leadership positions with all different types of testimonies and beliefs (even in your area ). And, I see those numbers growing as more members are exposed to some of the more difficult aspects from church history, polygamy, the Book of Abraham and a very long list of other issues good members are struggling over. Add to that the new policies that involve the gays and other social issues and many members testimonies are changing and evolving. The leaders know this too as they are speaking more and more to those members. And as I said, such persons are entitled to patience and pastoral guidance as they work through their problems. But let them be upfront about it, and let them not feign belief in order to occupy positions for which unbelief renders one unqualified.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 3 minutes ago, ALarson said: I didn't say that you did (I specified "your addition"). But you did change the meaning. Members can still accept church teachings but not believe it is the only true church on the face of the earth. Ok. You have every right to your opinion. However, the truth is that members are currently being called to leadership positions with all variations of testimonies. That is something you can't change and is also something that is a natural consequence of what is currently going on within the church. Just because a member no longer believes as they used to believe, it does not make them unworthy to serve. That's up to their leaders anyway....it's not up to you to pass judgement on them. Unworthy and unqualified are not necessarily the same. 1
MustardSeed Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Good grief yourself. Carrying on a charade of fidelity is never appropriate for one occupying certain positions in the Church. And anonymously proclaiming it on an Internet message board makes it worse. I admit I am new here, and don’t know jack about anyone’s history here. Maybe that has its benefits.... But I read in his (can’t even recall the name anymore , it’s so buried under such a thick layer of discussion about him) post a vulnerability and an openness. He came and shared his story. Everyone has a story. I feel sad for him.... he has in a way LOST his religion. That is painful painful stuff. He still LOVES his religion. What an excruciating place to be. As a community of Christ’s people, this is an opportunity to express our sadness for his experience and to encourage him, saving the “expell the beast” conversation for another time when it’s not pointed at a man in the center of the room. This site is designed for conflict. I say we not abandon all compassion. 2
ALarson Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: And as I said, such persons are entitled to patience and pastoral guidance as they work through their problems. But let them be upfront about it, and let them not feign belief in order to occupy positions for which unbelief renders one unqualified. It is not that simple. Many struggle in silence for years as they attempt to get a new footing and remain active and faithful. That does not render "one unqualified" to serve. I know it upsets you that struggling members with doubts are serving in leadership positions. I even understand why you would feel that way. But you can't change that it is a fact that these members are still being called to serve as ward and stake leaders. Edited February 7, 2019 by ALarson 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 4 minutes ago, ALarson said: It is not that simple. Many struggle in silence for years as they attempt to get a new footing and remain active and faithful. That does not render "one unqualified" to serve. I know it upsets you that struggling members with doubts are serving in leadership positions. I even understand why you would feel that way. But you can't change that it is a fact that these members are still being called to serve as ward and stake leaders. I’m not questioning that it happens, only that it is right or proper.
ALarson Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I’m not questioning that it happens, only that it is right or proper. And, that's your right to feel that way. It still doesn't change what is happening and what will continue to happen within the church (as more and more members become exposed to issues). There will most likely be even more serving in these callings who have altered or evolved or changed testimonies (however you want to describe it). I'd imagine the church leaders are very aware of this too and I see them making efforts to keep these members active and involved. That's a good thing. There needs to me less judgement and more love, IMO. We should leave a person's worthiness and qualifications to serve in a calling to be between them and their leaders and God. I've said my piece here and I'm not going to continue posting the same thing over and over again. I get that we don't agree and I respect your right to have your opinion and feelings. Edited February 7, 2019 by ALarson 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, ALarson said: And, that's your right to feel that way. It still doesn't change what is happening and what will continue to happen within the church (as more and more members become exposed to issues). There will most likely be even more serving in these callings who have altered or evolved or changed testimonies (however you want to describe it). I'd imagine the church leaders are very aware of this too and I see them making efforts to keep these members active and involved. That's a good thing. There needs to me less judgement and more love, IMO. We should leave a person's worthiness and qualifications to serve in a calling to be between them and their leaders and God. I've said my piece here and I'm not going to continue posting the same thing over and over again. I get that we don't agree and I respect your right to have your opinion and feelings. Keeping a person active and involved does not necessitate placing or retaining him in a position where, for whatever reason, he ought not be serving. And it’s all well and good to say his qualificaatlons are between the person and his leaders, but if the leaders are being kept in the dark about his circumstances, they are hindered in making a proper judgment about his fitness. Edited February 7, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
ALarson Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: Keeping a person active and involved does not necessitate placing or retaining him in a position where, for whatever reason, he ought not be serving. And once again: 8 minutes ago, ALarson said: We should leave a person's worthiness and qualifications to serve in a calling to be between them and their leaders and God. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 (edited) On 2/7/2019 at 9:40 AM, ALarson said: And once again: I thought you had spoken your piece on this. And I think you missed seeing a portion of my post, perhaps because I adddd it later. The part about leaders being kept in the dark. Furthermore, I question whether general Church leaders would be OK with someone being in a “prominent stake position” wwho is inclined to declare on the Internet, anonymously or not, that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Edited February 9, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
ALarson Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I thought you had spoken your piece on this. I have, but apparently it needed to be repeated.
jpv Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 41 minutes ago, ALarson said: The Second Anointing? I don't know who the Hornedog is....do you have a link? It's the article linked to in the original post by Dennis Horne. He says a BYU professor was preaching false doctrine by saying that ordination of men only is a practice not a doctrine. http://www.truthwillprevail.xyz/2019/01/why-some-people-leave-church.html
ALarson Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 1 minute ago, jpv said: It's the article linked to in the original post by Dennis Horne. He says a BYU professor was preaching false doctrine by saying that ordination of men only is a practice not a doctrine. http://www.truthwillprevail.xyz/2019/01/why-some-people-leave-church.html Thanks, I'll take a look at it. But is he referring to the Second Anointing when he discusses the "fulness of the Priesthood"?
Tacenda Posted February 7, 2019 Posted February 7, 2019 28 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: I admit I am new here, and don’t know jack about anyone’s history here. Maybe that has its benefits.... But I read in his (can’t even recall the name anymore , it’s so buried under such a thick layer of discussion about him) post a vulnerability and an openness. He came and shared his story. Everyone has a story. I feel sad for him.... he has in a way LOST his religion. That is painful painful stuff. He still LOVES his religion. What an excruciating place to be. As a community of Christ’s people, this is an opportunity to express our sadness for his experience and to encourage him, saving the “expell the beast” conversation for another time when it’s not pointed at a man in the center of the room. This site is designed for conflict. I say we not abandon all compassion. You are so right. I am who you speak of. It's been over 10 years that I've been going through a break up with the church and I can't let go. Late last night I edited my post to Hamba and this morning I see that I must have fallen asleep, was on my kindle, and hadn't saved it all the way. But I went into how my life changed completely, as a break up would do, lost friends, lost that feeling of knowing a sure thing, went into a deep depression, still there, a huge feeling of loneliness because I live in a state that everyone practically is LDS on your street. And feel like I'd love to go back to feeling like I belong somewhere. But lately the talks by leaders are scaring folks away from people like me. Like I'm a piranha or something. It's no wonder someone like Joe and others cannot let it go. If it was their life! Thanks for being a voice for good here.
Recommended Posts