Maidservant Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: This is super interesting. Like you, I don't "require" apologies from others. I figure, if I have to try to elicit an apology it won't really mean much. BUT... You don't give apologies? You never say your sorry? You don't express regret if you've done something wrong, or hurt someone, even if unintentionally? I find that extremely unusual and I can't understand why, as a matter of personal policy you would refuse to offer apologies when one is warranted. Can you help me understand the thinking on that? Also, how do you not "receive" apologies. If someone offers an apology to you for something they have said or done that caused some measure of pain or harm, would you tell them you don't accept the apology? If so, why? It seems very rude, and I can't conceive of a good reason why, as a matter of personal policy you would refuse to accept ("receive") the heartfelt apology from another person. Can you help me understand that? OR am I just totally misunderstanding what you are saying here? More or less you have it. Obviously, if someone came in front of me and said with all of their heart an apology, I wouldn't be rude. I would put my arm around them for their pain. But I absolutely would tell them they were forgiven a long time ago by me, and they don't owe me anything. (I don't wait for an apology before forgiving someone.) I can't imagine who would come before like this other than people I am already very close to, my family and one or two close friends. (I suppose there could be situations--like if someone hit and killed my child with a car; obviously I would be compassionate as possible in that situation if they wanted to apologize, but still, I would not be waiting for, wanting, or needing an apology. I would already know it was an accident, and THEIR apology wouldn't help ME--although it might be an opportunity for me to bless them and tell them not to harrow up their mind anymore.) But as far as close family and friends, also it doesn't mean we can't have talks and work things out and repent and change. But I wouldn't hang it on the terminology of apology, although I wouldn't freak out if one seemed to be what was needed in a specific real time situation. (And I'm assuming we're not talking about bits like saying "Sorry I'm late," or "I am so sorry I knocked over Grandma's heirloom vase!" and stuff like that.) I have a close friend. She's made a lot of mistakes. She is rethinking her entire life now. She keeps apologizing, especially to her children. It's not healthy. And these repeated apologies cause more pain, not less, especially to her children. Because she is siphoning off her pain to them and making them make her feel better because of the drama of the apology, instead of dealing with her own pain. I mean, she's getting there. But I don't really see the efficacy of the apology. And, yes, in her case--we have a long relationship and can say anything to each other--I've told her over and over again to stop apologizing to me, I don't need it; and to forgive herself. In our family there are big issues, not little ones--both the one I grew up in and the one I raised. People who are in the middle of addiction and abuse say a lot of sorry's and I've heard them all and given some myself. I maintain that they are worthless. The biggest abusers are the best apologizers, so it's not that strange that I would have lost my good opinion of apologies a long time ago having experienced so many that did not lead to any good thing or any relief. Of course, I FEEL HORRIBLE for many things I have done, the weaknesses I have, and the hurt I have caused people (and I have hurt a lot of people to a high degree). And I recognize that (some of) the people who hurt me probably feel great remorse as well. Again, I don't need them to come to me to let me know that and it wouldn't make me feel any better. Seeing them transform and feeling no more pain for themselves, that would make me feel better. My best apology is changing. Repenting. And every day I try to do a lot of changing. That's my apology--my life is my apology. It's not a set of words. My kids and others don't want to hear my "wa, wa, wa, I feel so bad about what I did, I'm sorry!" unless there's a change. When my kids were younger, I told them often enough, "I know I am doing wrong." I never made it out like I was doing what was right. I admitted my weaknesses even when I was in the middle of them. But the admittance, sincere as it was, didn't afford me any strength to change and it didn't make it any better for the person I admitted to if I wasn't also going to change. From the point of view of little ones, "Yea, great, mom apologized, but I still have to be hurt soon again with [the situation]." But I also didn't necessarily have the capacity to change--until I did. I did it little by little, step by step. The 12 steps talk about making amends. I absolutely believe in making amends. I don't think amends are apologies and I don't think that apologies are amends. I think apologies are often sorry half crap ways of avoiding making amends. (Not saying for everyone, of course, but that's been my personal experience.) Surely my personal experiences have colored this, but perhaps you can see where I'm coming from even if you wouldn't go all the way there yourself. I do have a daughter for whom I think an apology might be helpful for her. We need to talk more so I can make sure that is what she is really needing for me--saying the words out loud. The rest of my kids--it's meaningless. We've worked out our relationship in real time and we are finding joy, although of course there will be more layers of healing. Although I suppose now that you've made me think about it, I will ask each of them if that's what they want from me, or any specific item. But I'm still changing! So it's really hard to apologize for being alive and being myself and thereby being a source of pain for them! And again--I can't think of anyone else besides my kids and other very close people (handful) for whom this would make any difference. And absolutely my parents, kids, close friends, church members don't owe me any apologies. If they came to me, I'd make sure they knew that I never had any ill will and they are free from trying to change my attitude toward them with an apology, because my attitude has always been peace be unto you. If I knew of someone who felt this way already, that they felt so bad for something they did to me or thought they did to me, I'd go find them right now before they came to me, to make sure they weren't beating themselves up about anything they may have thought they did to me. Apologies--a formulaic of word and communication--are traditions of our culture--they are meant to denote repentance, but for me in my life, they never did actually denote repentance and reconciliation, but side-stepped it. So I discarded the tradition and went for the meat of the reality. If someone came to me with an apology to start a deeper conversation, I'd be grateful, but I'd want the conversation and moving forward and becoming better--the certain words wouldn't matter to me. I can see where someone, not jaded like me, who still connected apology directly with repentance and reconciliation might be dismayed to not receive one, and gratified and released from pain when receiving one; because to them it would mean that the person wasn't really sorry because they didn't say sorry; so they would be taking it the opposite way than I do and I get that--for them. But for someone who has seen a lot of unhealthy, ineffective remorse (yes, it can be), and the words 'sorry' that really weren't and that do not lead to healing, I'm not stuck on that tradition. Edited June 25, 2019 by Maidservant 2
Tacenda Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Calm said: Add-on: not seeing it on ldsliving... Do we know if the source of the Korean story was firsthand from Pres. Nelson to Dew? Was it correct in conference talks, etc? It wasn't clear to me (half asleep today). Dew might have gotten it from someone else or conflated stories. When accusing someone of lying, one should be careful with the details. President Nelson should have proofed the book, imo, and removed inaccuracies. If by some chance he misremembered, this should be admitted. If he added colour, he should apologize about that. I think a public apology would be good given the family wants the real story out there, especially a better portrait of their dad (I am assuming the retraction does that, it should be done on ldsliving as well imo). Plus if descendants come across this story, they may get confused and frustrated by the inaccuracies (was great-great Grandma a nurse? in Korea? Why doesn't she say so? Which source is right?) There were stories in my dad's journal I had never heard him share. Otoh, his mom had made a lot of some of them for as long as I knew her and she had firsthand knowledge, my mom spoke of others. There are also newspaper articles from the times and other documents. So I figure with Dad he likely gets the basic facts more or less right, what is going on with others might be a creation though (their motivations, desires, thoughts, background he might not be very familiar with and not paid close attention to) Tacenda, you might want to point out the problem to ldsliving. If more than a few bring it up, then they will more likely see it as important enough to pay for getting it removed (put it in a higher priority of work to be done). The family went to LDS Living and Deseret Book to have them take it down. So maybe that's why you're not finding it. RFM was under the impression that it was there still. Did you see my links? It has a snipped copy on there and the full story on Mormonwiki leaks which I c/p'd as well. I'll c/p'd again the two links that will hopefully explain everything for you. https://truthandtransparency.org/news/2019/4/9/false-story-removed-from-newest-book-on-the-life-of-mormon-president-russell-m-nelson https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/4/45/2019-03-You_Didnt_Read_It_Did_You.pdf
Calm Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 9 minutes ago, Tacenda said: The family went to LDS Living and Deseret Book to have them take it down. So maybe that's why you're not finding it. RFM was under the impression that it was there still. Did you see my links? It has a snipped copy on there and the full story on Mormonwiki leaks which I c/p'd as well. I'll c/p'd again the two links that will hopefully explain everything for you. https://truthandtransparency.org/news/2019/4/9/false-story-removed-from-newest-book-on-the-life-of-mormon-president-russell-m-nelson https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/4/45/2019-03-You_Didnt_Read_It_Did_You.pdf No, I saw them and read them. That is why I went looking for it.
changed Posted June 25, 2019 Author Posted June 25, 2019 (edited) On 6/14/2019 at 2:55 PM, MustardSeed said: I’d like to cut OP some slack. The Sunday school answer is, follow the prophet always, and all will be well. It’s wrong to choose any other way, but hey, agency. The individual truth is likely that most people do think for themselves and there are a few minority who would follow a prophet into a burning building. So... how many members supported the priesthood ban on blacks? how many supported exiling the innocent children of LGBT families? ... more than a few minority who have followed prophets into burning buildings... Following prophets is not being "faithful" - it is putting the arm of flesh above God, above their own conscience. Edited June 25, 2019 by changed 1
changed Posted June 25, 2019 Author Posted June 25, 2019 (edited) On 6/16/2019 at 5:11 PM, Stargazer said: Uh, no. Ever been a member of a combat unit? I thought not. If your troops lose faith or confidence in your ability to command, lives will be lost. Bringing up the extreme and infrequent example of illegal orders does not help your case. It even applies to civilian life, except for the loss of life. I have rarely, if ever, heard any leader in civilian or military life confess to mistakes, at least in public. And there were mistakes made, without doubt. Teachers teaching critical thinking skills is a nonsequitor. Aaaand.... this is the mindset of those who followed Hitler and others like him.... just follow orders, no matter what.... for evil to prevail is for sheeple to follow orders without thinking for themselves. If the military, or religious leader, or professor, or anyone for that matter chooses not to admit mistakes then no one will learn from the mistake, and it will be made again and again and again... does not matter if they admit to it or not, those who are asked to follow should feel no obligation to follow what does not sit well with their conscience. I actually have done some work for the DOD... and yes, I did make the personal decision not to work for them any more. For religious leaders - we are not talking about a combat situation with limited time - not some knee jerk reaction. After much prayer and fasting, after much study - if things do not sit well with your conscience, that is when everyone should feel perfectly free to say "sorry, I am not going to sustain that, or the leader who is pushing that". without being considered unfaithful etc. Edited June 25, 2019 by changed 1
changed Posted June 25, 2019 Author Posted June 25, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Maidservant said: In our family there are big issues, not little ones--both the one I grew up in and the one I raised. People who are in the middle of addiction and abuse say a lot of sorry's and I've heard them all and given some myself. I maintain that they are worthless. The biggest abusers are the best apologizers, so it's not that strange that I would have lost my good opinion of apologies a long time ago having experienced so many that did not lead to any good thing or any relief. 70 times 70, I get that, but admitting the problem and confessing the problem (which is the same as apologizing to me) is where repentance starts. Without a confession of wrong-doing, there is no repentance - no taking even the first step. Someone who apologizes over and over and over again is better than someone who pretends they did not do anything wrong, and refuses to confess to anything. A full confession is needed for the repentance process to start, that confession = "I am sorry that I did xyz...." confession = walking through and admitting what was done wrong. Edited June 25, 2019 by changed
HappyJackWagon Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 13 hours ago, Maidservant said: More or less you have it. Obviously, if someone came in front of me and said with all of their heart an apology, I wouldn't be rude. I would put my arm around them for their pain. But I absolutely would tell them they were forgiven a long time ago by me, and they don't owe me anything. (I don't wait for an apology before forgiving someone.) I can't imagine who would come before like this other than people I am already very close to, my family and one or two close friends. (I suppose there could be situations--like if someone hit and killed my child with a car; obviously I would be compassionate as possible in that situation if they wanted to apologize, but still, I would not be waiting for, wanting, or needing an apology. I would already know it was an accident, and THEIR apology wouldn't help ME--although it might be an opportunity for me to bless them and tell them not to harrow up their mind anymore.) But as far as close family and friends, also it doesn't mean we can't have talks and work things out and repent and change. But I wouldn't hang it on the terminology of apology, although I wouldn't freak out if one seemed to be what was needed in a specific real time situation. (And I'm assuming we're not talking about bits like saying "Sorry I'm late," or "I am so sorry I knocked over Grandma's heirloom vase!" and stuff like that.) I have a close friend. She's made a lot of mistakes. She is rethinking her entire life now. She keeps apologizing, especially to her children. It's not healthy. And these repeated apologies cause more pain, not less, especially to her children. Because she is siphoning off her pain to them and making them make her feel better because of the drama of the apology, instead of dealing with her own pain. I mean, she's getting there. But I don't really see the efficacy of the apology. And, yes, in her case--we have a long relationship and can say anything to each other--I've told her over and over again to stop apologizing to me, I don't need it; and to forgive herself. In our family there are big issues, not little ones--both the one I grew up in and the one I raised. People who are in the middle of addiction and abuse say a lot of sorry's and I've heard them all and given some myself. I maintain that they are worthless. The biggest abusers are the best apologizers, so it's not that strange that I would have lost my good opinion of apologies a long time ago having experienced so many that did not lead to any good thing or any relief. Of course, I FEEL HORRIBLE for many things I have done, the weaknesses I have, and the hurt I have caused people (and I have hurt a lot of people to a high degree). And I recognize that (some of) the people who hurt me probably feel great remorse as well. Again, I don't need them to come to me to let me know that and it wouldn't make me feel any better. Seeing them transform and feeling no more pain for themselves, that would make me feel better. My best apology is changing. Repenting. And every day I try to do a lot of changing. That's my apology--my life is my apology. It's not a set of words. My kids and others don't want to hear my "wa, wa, wa, I feel so bad about what I did, I'm sorry!" unless there's a change. When my kids were younger, I told them often enough, "I know I am doing wrong." I never made it out like I was doing what was right. I admitted my weaknesses even when I was in the middle of them. But the admittance, sincere as it was, didn't afford me any strength to change and it didn't make it any better for the person I admitted to if I wasn't also going to change. From the point of view of little ones, "Yea, great, mom apologized, but I still have to be hurt soon again with [the situation]." But I also didn't necessarily have the capacity to change--until I did. I did it little by little, step by step. The 12 steps talk about making amends. I absolutely believe in making amends. I don't think amends are apologies and I don't think that apologies are amends. I think apologies are often sorry half crap ways of avoiding making amends. (Not saying for everyone, of course, but that's been my personal experience.) Surely my personal experiences have colored this, but perhaps you can see where I'm coming from even if you wouldn't go all the way there yourself. I do have a daughter for whom I think an apology might be helpful for her. We need to talk more so I can make sure that is what she is really needing for me--saying the words out loud. The rest of my kids--it's meaningless. We've worked out our relationship in real time and we are finding joy, although of course there will be more layers of healing. Although I suppose now that you've made me think about it, I will ask each of them if that's what they want from me, or any specific item. But I'm still changing! So it's really hard to apologize for being alive and being myself and thereby being a source of pain for them! And again--I can't think of anyone else besides my kids and other very close people (handful) for whom this would make any difference. And absolutely my parents, kids, close friends, church members don't owe me any apologies. If they came to me, I'd make sure they knew that I never had any ill will and they are free from trying to change my attitude toward them with an apology, because my attitude has always been peace be unto you. If I knew of someone who felt this way already, that they felt so bad for something they did to me or thought they did to me, I'd go find them right now before they came to me, to make sure they weren't beating themselves up about anything they may have thought they did to me. Apologies--a formulaic of word and communication--are traditions of our culture--they are meant to denote repentance, but for me in my life, they never did actually denote repentance and reconciliation, but side-stepped it. So I discarded the tradition and went for the meat of the reality. If someone came to me with an apology to start a deeper conversation, I'd be grateful, but I'd want the conversation and moving forward and becoming better--the certain words wouldn't matter to me. I can see where someone, not jaded like me, who still connected apology directly with repentance and reconciliation might be dismayed to not receive one, and gratified and released from pain when receiving one; because to them it would mean that the person wasn't really sorry because they didn't say sorry; so they would be taking it the opposite way than I do and I get that--for them. But for someone who has seen a lot of unhealthy, ineffective remorse (yes, it can be), and the words 'sorry' that really weren't and that do not lead to healing, I'm not stuck on that tradition. Thanks for sharing. IMO- apologies, whether for something substantial or even something small can be meaningful. It communicates recognition of an error and a desire to attempt to change. It indicates a level of humility. I recognize I did something wrong. I recognize it had a negative impact on others. I need to do better. I'll communicate that. So, even "sorry i was late" can be important, especially if it had a negative impact on others. Now, if someone is late every single day, and apologizes every time, then I get why that would be meaningless. But we're not merely talking about people who offer meaningless apologies. We're talking about legit apologies. So just as apologizing can show humility, refusal to apologize can also show arrogance. If I have an employee who is late, I would want them to acknowledge the fact that they were late and commit to do better. If they show up 20 minutes late and don't even acknowledge it, there is an even bigger problem. About a year ago my brother invited my family over for dinner. Totally normal thing. We get there and the house is locked. No one is home. We sit there for a few minutes and he shows up with his family. They were running a few minutes late. He apologized for being late. It wasn't some grand, heartfelt display, but he recognized it was odd to not be home at the time he invited us to come over. It wasn't a big deal at all, but it would have been weird if he hadn't said anything. It would have been even weirder if when he apologized I refused to accept it. Different strokes I guess. I've never met anyone with your POV on apologies before so i appreciate you sharing your perspective. I find it very odd but you probably find me very odd to so it's all good 1
Maidservant Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 (edited) On 6/24/2019 at 7:11 PM, changed said: 70 times 70, I get that, but admitting the problem and confessing the problem (which is the same as apologizing to me) is where repentance starts. Without a confession of wrong-doing, there is no repentance - no taking even the first step. Someone who apologizes over and over and over again is better than someone who pretends they did not do anything wrong, and refuses to confess to anything. A full confession is needed for the repentance process to start, that confession = "I am sorry that I did xyz...." confession = walking through and admitting what was done wrong. I agree with you in principle, I think we are just using different words. For you, apology goes with admitting something is wrong. For me, apology goes with fixing what went wrong (and it can't, according to me). But I DO AGREE that awareness of what one did wrong is important and admitting it can help a relationship and is the beginning of change. In fact as I was thinking about this conversation when I went to bed last night and when I got up this morning, thinking even about The Church of Jesus Christ, and, say, the harm done regarding the experience of blacks in the Church. Again . . . an apology just seems so flimsy to me. "Ongoing institutional harm . . . . AND we're sorry about that." I might even be insulted if that's all that came of that. So the word I was thinking of that would be more valuable to me was acknowledgement. And I was going to write here about acknowledgment (rather than apology) and then I saw your words and ideas of putting acknowledgement that there was wrong done under the umbrella of apology. So I get that. Makes sense coming from where you coming from. I just happened to learn or choose to frame it a different way. So some of it is semantic. I think we agree in principle. I would add just on the general conversation, that my internal state is my responsibility only. No one can change it but me, especially long term. So when (most) people come to me with an apology, if the purpose of it is to say that they hurt me--for me, they didn't hurt me, because they can't. Only I am responsible for my level of hurt. That of course is not 100 percent, because we all go through many traumas at the hands of others. But the apology is not what is going to untraumatize me. Edited June 26, 2019 by Maidservant 2
Stargazer Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 On 6/25/2019 at 3:01 AM, changed said: Aaaand.... this is the mindset of those who followed Hitler and others like him.... just follow orders, no matter what.... for evil to prevail is for sheeple to follow orders without thinking for themselves. If the military, or religious leader, or professor, or anyone for that matter chooses not to admit mistakes then no one will learn from the mistake, and it will be made again and again and again... does not matter if they admit to it or not, those who are asked to follow should feel no obligation to follow what does not sit well with their conscience. I actually have done some work for the DOD... and yes, I did make the personal decision not to work for them any more. For religious leaders - we are not talking about a combat situation with limited time - not some knee jerk reaction. After much prayer and fasting, after much study - if things do not sit well with your conscience, that is when everyone should feel perfectly free to say "sorry, I am not going to sustain that, or the leader who is pushing that". without being considered unfaithful etc. Good job! Equating Nazism with military discipline. Perhaps you can go further with this and join AOC in claiming the US is operating concentration camps on its southern border with Mexico. And perhaps you would like to serve as a combat soldier in a unit whose every member must be consulted before any orders are carried out. I have a dentist appointment that day -- because it's a recipe for disaster! Mistakes in war are not infrequent. General Patton ordered a raid on a POW camp in which his son-in-law was being held. The raid was a mistake, resulting in the loss of almost all of those sent to carry it out, and failed in its goal. As it turned out, Patton admitted the raid was a mistake. Does this admission help anything? In the same war, Field Marshal Montgomery devised an operation ("Market-Garden") whose objective was to create a 64 mi (103 km) salient into German territory with a foothold over the River Rhine, creating an Allied invasion route into northern Germany. The operation succeeded in some ways, but failed of its overall purpose. See the film "A Bridge Too Far" for a good portrayal. There were plenty of mistakes made, in both planning and execution, and in the end Montgomery admitted: "It was a bad mistake on my part – I underestimated the difficulties of opening up the approaches to Antwerp..." Does Montgomery's admission help anything at all? Other mistakes were made in that conflict, for example, Admiral Halsey being lured into taking his entire 3rd Fleet and chasing a nonexistent Japanese naval threat while the real Japanese fleet nearly cut off an entire US amphibious operation -- that was saved only because the pittance of US ships left put up such a furious fight that the Japanese admiral mistakenly believed he was facing a superior enemy force. Did Admiral Halsey or Admiral Narita apologize for their mistakes? Nope, and nobody demanded they do -- because admissions of mistake are actually useless. We all know that mistakes were made, even when the mistakes are not admitted. As it happens, mistakes are part and parcel of the human condition, and we are all subject to making them. In my opinion, I think you are making the mistake of throwing the Church out with the bathwater because you got a genuinely raw deal sometime in the past, when other members of the Church made some colossal mistakes that should not have been made. The Church is either still true, or not; that is not affected by those mistakes. Luke 17:1 - "Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!" Christ himself predicted that something like what happened to you would inevitably happen. But what happened is in a distinct minority. And though by their fruits we shall know them, the fruits of the Gospel are not congruent with the evils perpetrated on you -- in other words, those evils did not grow out of the Gospel, but by disobedience to its tenets. You must realize this, but you continue to insist (by your words and deeds) that those evils ARE the fruits of the gospel. And so you reject the Church, in my opinion unwisely.
mfbukowski Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 I think everyone in this discussion is right. Religious decisions are different than military decisions. In military service clearly you have to follow orders. On the other hand in a religious context you should never have to feel that you need to do something beyond what your conscience permits, or follow a leader in whom you have no trust. One must also realize that the local leader is not the institution. Just as a military leader may make an error that does not mean that the war itself was unjust. Likewise because a church leader makes mistake that does not mean the church is an error. Just throwing out some observations on the discussion.... 2
The Nehor Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 On 6/24/2019 at 8:53 PM, changed said: Following prophets is not being "faithful" - it is putting the arm of flesh above God, above their own conscience. Your conscience is not God. 3
The Nehor Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 On 6/24/2019 at 9:11 PM, changed said: 70 times 70, I get that, but admitting the problem and confessing the problem (which is the same as apologizing to me) is where repentance starts. Without a confession of wrong-doing, there is no repentance - no taking even the first step. Someone who apologizes over and over and over again is better than someone who pretends they did not do anything wrong, and refuses to confess to anything. A full confession is needed for the repentance process to start, that confession = "I am sorry that I did xyz...." confession = walking through and admitting what was done wrong. They are not always better for endlessly apologizing. Maidservant is right. Far too many people fall into the trap of endless apologizing without changing or even any intent to change and the apologies become meaningless. It turns into lying. It becomes a magical incantation to make someone stop being upset at you that costs you nothing and when everyone around you realizes this (and only an idiot can be fooled for long) they still say angry and then the original offender gets the black pleasure of being the victim because no one will forgive them as they should. I just try to avoid associating with people who use that tactic. 2
mfbukowski Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 4 hours ago, The Nehor said: Your conscience is not God. And how does one tell the difference?
strappinglad Posted June 27, 2019 Posted June 27, 2019 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: And how does one tell the difference? Consider Nephi and Laban. Nephi's conscience told him killing Laban was wrong. God told him it was right in this instance. Which would win for you personally? I might have been tempted to say" If You want him dead, do it Yourself " Cue the lightning bolt !
mfbukowski Posted June 27, 2019 Posted June 27, 2019 4 hours ago, strappinglad said: Consider Nephi and Laban. Nephi's conscience told him killing Laban was wrong. God told him it was right in this instance. Which would win for you personally? I might have been tempted to say" If You want him dead, do it Yourself " Cue the lightning bolt ! OK but this does not answer the question. How did Nephi know which was which? This is a standard question in apologetics tied to the idea that "Well God is telling me the church is wrong" objection. The problem is that the there is no way to describe the difference, so one has to either deprecate the spiritual abilities of the objector ("Sorry you can't tell the difference, but I can!")- which destroys the Moroni promise ("Ask God and he will manifest the truth to you"- the usual objection- "Well I asked God and did not answer"/ or "God told me to join another religion") So how does one answer that?
The Nehor Posted June 27, 2019 Posted June 27, 2019 6 hours ago, mfbukowski said: And how does one tell the difference? Experience.
mfbukowski Posted June 27, 2019 Posted June 27, 2019 43 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Experience. I agree but that does not answer the question unfortunately. If you can't describe it, you can't teach it to others. And drawing the distinction in the first place means that you have stated a distinction without a difference- making the comment irrelevant to the conversation.
theplains Posted June 27, 2019 Posted June 27, 2019 On 6/13/2019 at 10:28 PM, changed said: Another point of conversation - how far do you trust church leadership? Where do you question? What do you feel free in disagreeing with? In seeing a leader as someone who is imperfect and does not always get everything right? I like what Mr. Packer said long ago - "It isn’t a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true" (1977, Follow the Rule, speeches.byu.edu). Thanks, Jim 1
changed Posted June 27, 2019 Author Posted June 27, 2019 3 hours ago, theplains said: I like what Mr. Packer said long ago - "It isn’t a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true" (1977, Follow the Rule, speeches.byu.edu). Thanks, Jim So, how do you handle church leaders saying things that are not true?
Calm Posted June 27, 2019 Posted June 27, 2019 53 minutes ago, changed said: So, how do you handle church leaders saying things that are not true? Jim is not LDS. 1
theplains Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 On 6/27/2019 at 4:34 PM, changed said: So, how do you handle church leaders saying things that are not true? I am not part of the LDS leadership so I cannot say what disciplinary action needs to be applied. But I suppose something public needs to be done at General Conference or the Ensign magazine to call out the teacher and clearly indicate why a teaching is false. If the false teaching is allowed to remain 'in the wild' so to speak, it will cause damage. Thanks, Jim
Tacenda Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 Yesterday I listened to a meeting that was recorded with a bishop and a member of the ward that didn't want his son's baptismal interview to have any sexual innuendo during it and the bishop proceeds to tell him that it is his mantle to ask the questions the church has established in the interviews. It was depressing to listen to. Then today I read this from Sam Young, and it is a good feeling to see. From the bottom up, or some awesome grassroot movements going on! https://invisiblescubit.com/2019/07/13/grass-roots-changes-in-the-mormon-church/?fbclid=IwAR07A7Wgq64otU9cssbpLy703Jp4nIQdTo46GAsHxwlNNKX0UvjpEDtKhFI
Scott Lloyd Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 On 6/24/2019 at 7:53 PM, changed said: So... how many members supported the priesthood ban on blacks? how many supported exiling the innocent children of LGBT families? ... more than a few minority who have followed prophets into burning buildings... Following prophets is not being "faithful" - it is putting the arm of flesh above God, above their own conscience. This presupposes that followingprophets is trusting “the arm of flesh.” That is not a given.
JulieM Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 4 hours ago, Tacenda said: Yesterday I listened to a meeting that was recorded with a bishop and a member of the ward that didn't want his son's baptismal interview to have any sexual innuendo during it and the bishop proceeds to tell him that it is his mantle to ask the questions the church has established in the interviews. It was depressing to listen to. Then today I read this from Sam Young, and it is a good feeling to see. From the bottom up, or some awesome grassroot movements going on! https://invisiblescubit.com/2019/07/13/grass-roots-changes-in-the-mormon-church/?fbclid=IwAR07A7Wgq64otU9cssbpLy703Jp4nIQdTo46GAsHxwlNNKX0UvjpEDtKhFI I read through some of the reports (back from bishopric counselors and bishops). They are very encouraging and it makes me happy to see the progress here!
Exiled Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: This presupposes that followingprophets is trusting “the arm of flesh.” That is not a given. I don't think it presupposes anything. "Prophets" are men and fallible. Changed highlighted some of the mistakes these men have made over the years and there isn't an infallible way to determine when these men are being fallible and making their mistakes, big and small. So, I think it's a safe conclusion, obvious to most in the world, that following prophets is like following any other man, or the arm of flesh.
Recommended Posts