Bernard Gui Posted July 6, 2019 Posted July 6, 2019 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Calm said: You mean Jeanne, not JulieM Yes. Thanks for the correction. Edited July 6, 2019 by Bernard Gui
rockpond Posted July 6, 2019 Posted July 6, 2019 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Early on in this thread, President Ballard was accused of disingenuousness, “gaslighting,” etc. That goes way beyond merely saying he misspoke (which, by the way, is a thing I don’t see how you could know. You don’t know any better than anyone else whether Church leaders know how the things President Ballard decried got started. All you can do is guess). Add on: Your last sentence is wrong. One can accept as a given that a person is fallible without being able to cite specific errors or without engaging in active fault finding. Can a church member identify an error in an official address by one of our apostles or prophets without it being considered as “impugning his honor” by you? I get that one can accept that they are fallible without citing specific errors. But, as I wrote before, if citing an error is considered “impugning their honesty” you might as well consider them infallible. If we want to claim fallible leaders, we need to be able to identify errors. Otherwise in the practical sense, we’re treating them as infallible. 2
rockpond Posted July 6, 2019 Posted July 6, 2019 11 hours ago, Calm said: Please explain meaning of this phrase Breaking down the individuals seeking baptism into smaller groups. Before we had COR and investigators. Nov 2015 essentially said that who your parents are also placed you into a group with specific requirements along with your age and who you live with.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 6, 2019 Posted July 6, 2019 16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: The last three comments in Jeanne’s post I quoted. Uncalled for. OK. I’m relieved. I thought you meant the last three posts, of which mine was one. You’re one of my main allies here, so if I upset you, I know I’ve really gone off the rails.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 6, 2019 Posted July 6, 2019 14 hours ago, rockpond said: Can a church member identify an error in an official address by one of our apostles or prophets without it being considered as “impugning his honor” by you? I get that one can accept that they are fallible without citing specific errors. But, as I wrote before, if citing an error is considered “impugning their honesty” you might as well consider them infallible. If we want to claim fallible leaders, we need to be able to identify errors. Otherwise in the practical sense, we’re treating them as infallible. As I’ve already said, it wasn’t just a matter of public disagreement but, in effect, of accusing him of lying. I’m not going to revisit the early posts on this thread or name names, but a couple of them were despicable. 1
Bernard Gui Posted July 6, 2019 Posted July 6, 2019 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: OK. I’m relieved. I thought you meant the last three posts, of which mine was one. You’re one of my main allies here, so if I upset you, I know I’ve really gone off the rails. Oops. Sorry for the confusion. I don’t ever see you going off the gospel rails. It would shock me if you did and I would ask what was going on. Edited July 6, 2019 by Bernard Gui
JulieM Posted July 7, 2019 Posted July 7, 2019 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: As I’ve already said, it wasn’t just a matter of public disagreement but, in effect, of accusing him of lying. I’m not going to revisit the early posts on this thread or name names, but a couple of them were despicable. But the question was just about stating a belief that they misspoke or made an error (not name calling or accusing them of lying). Do you believe this can take place without impugning their honor? 2
Recommended Posts