mfbukowski Posted October 7, 2019 Posted October 7, 2019 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: The term is very much present in the Church’s handbooks for the reason I gave: to refer to the relationship of those five organizations to the priesthood. Now that the term has been retired, there may be less precision in, say, differentiating those organizations from other groups in the Church. But practically when does that happen? What other groups did you have in mind? 1
rockpond Posted October 7, 2019 Posted October 7, 2019 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: So are you saying here that a member could be eligible for a recommend even if he has not overcome a masturbation habit? Has masturbation ever been cause to deny a recommend?
CV75 Posted October 7, 2019 Posted October 7, 2019 (edited) 12 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Well, I'm in trouble now. Although I disagree with this change. Which I suppose also puts me in trouble. And probably half the membership too I suppose. Unless we all only support the official version of every single doctrine... 12 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Alternative interpretations are not " contrary" in my book, they are different perspectives What do you think are some of the most common examples? Edited October 7, 2019 by CV75
longview Posted October 7, 2019 Posted October 7, 2019 12 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I feel fine about my interpretations because I feel they are all compatible with Doctrine and admit I could be wrong, and say so. Alternative interpretations are not " contrary" in my book, they are different perspectives Beware the tiny hooks of . . . SATAN ! ! !
CV75 Posted October 7, 2019 Posted October 7, 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Hey who am I to say-- but sounds good to me if they are contradicting themselves- what are you supposed to do?? Care to share which doctrines? This kind of rings a bell with me that you disagreed on something but I can't remember what. Just curious and it's not my business and if we disagree I won't bring it up again- I think people who follow the spirit are entitled to their own revelations anyway. The entire contradiction the church does not seem to understand is that not everyone agrees with the church's revelations even though they might pray about their positions and get different answers from the spirit. The problem with that is it is on the edge of a contradiction to expect people to get their own testimonies and then when the person comes up with their own revelation, calling it an "error". Either we really allow for personal individual revelations or we follow blindly- and that is the route of Jim Jones. So they have a problem with encouraging individual testimony while demanding dogmatic adherence to doctrine. But that is not what is happening. That itself is contradictory to the teachings they intend to express. And really the bottom line is that if some beliefs are actually "contrary" to our doctrine ("The Atonement never happened.") then the temple is probably not for them anyway. So suppose you believe in the Adam God theory. Do you "promote" that view and is it "contrary" to church doctrine? Not in my book. Doctrine on that is very ambiguous. I don’t think #7 necessitates or assumes that anyone pray about contrary teachings, practices or doctrine before answering, or that it denies anyone believing or receiving revelation according to whatever spirit they follow. I think these questions are not about membership renewal, but a way for members to hold to the dictates of their conscience (as opposed to contrary actions such as support and promotion) on any particular point while allowing the Church to hold to hers on the point of temple activity. Edited October 7, 2019 by CV75
kllindley Posted October 7, 2019 Posted October 7, 2019 7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: So are you saying here that a member could be eligible for a recommend even if he has not overcome a masturbation habit? I absolutely believe they can be worthy while working to overcome habits or compulsive behaviors. That is consistent with counsel President Oaks gave nearly a decade ago. Unfortunately some Bishops and Stake Presidents have not been following it. 1
provoman Posted October 7, 2019 Posted October 7, 2019 7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: So are you saying here that a member could be eligible for a recommend even if he has not overcome a masturbation habit? I think "could" recognizes that a Bishop and Stake Presidents are who the ones who deal with Temple eligibility. Unless there is was a list of carnal acts that prohibited eligibility, then a person always "could" be granted a recommend despite a carnal act. And unless there is presently a list of acts that prohibit entering the Temple, the "strive" language certainly puts the issue of a carnal act in the purview of the Stake President to grant a recommend despite the act.
Nacho2dope Posted October 7, 2019 Posted October 7, 2019 I think the biggest problem I see is those on social media trying to twist and redefine the recommend questions to fit their current lifestyle. They want to continue to support or promote teachings or living that is contrary to the teachings of The Church. They seem to feel that if the believe hard enough that the Church is wrong they can live and act however they please and continue to take advantage of the Temple. In my opinion that is not true and not how one should live. I guess in the end they will have to stand before God and explain their actions. I think Elder Holland said it best when he said “They know they should keep their primary residence in Zion, but they still hope to keep a summer cottage in Babylon” 1
etana Posted October 7, 2019 Posted October 7, 2019 43 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said: I think the biggest problem I see is those on social media trying to twist and redefine the recommend questions to fit their current lifestyle. They want to continue to support or promote teachings or living that is contrary to the teachings of The Church. They seem to feel that if the believe hard enough that the Church is wrong they can live and act however they please and continue to take advantage of the Temple. In my opinion that is not true and not how one should live. I guess in the end they will have to stand before God and explain their actions. I think Elder Holland said it best when he said “They know they should keep their primary residence in Zion, but they still hope to keep a summer cottage in Babylon” I don't have a problem with these, let alone a "biggest problem". I do have a problem with my tendencies to self-righteous judging of other people's reacions to this in both projecting my own self-doubts on them and judging them based on those projections in an attempt to magnify my own literal (but still cherry-picked) efforts of obedience.
mfbukowski Posted October 7, 2019 Posted October 7, 2019 5 hours ago, CV75 said: What do you think are some of the most common examples? The usual stuff we see around here. The Flood. A literal Adam and Eve. Evolution. Infallibility of prophets. Everything the anti's love to push that no one actually believes.
mfbukowski Posted October 7, 2019 Posted October 7, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, CV75 said: ....or that it denies anyone believing or receiving revelation according to whatever spirit they follow. So you think different people follow different spirits? Like ouija boards or something? Dead guy A vs dead guy B? This is the kind of ambiguity that I think confuses everyone- it's Mormonese. Like the idea that even Jesus Christ is the savior. Like there are a bunch of saviors and even Jesus is one? Who else did you have in mind? Where did that usage come from? And that "dammed" as in "the flow of water is stopped" is the same word as "damned" which means that one goes to hell for eternity? "The spirit of revelation".... "The spirit of contention"..... Like are these actual spirits or is what is meant ? I think Some of these usages come straight out of the 18th century- the way we talk we should be Amish... Edited October 7, 2019 by mfbukowski
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2019 Author Posted October 7, 2019 (edited) 11 hours ago, mfbukowski said: But practically when does that happen? What other groups did you have in mind? Single adult or young single adult organizations, for instance. Just because you haven’t heard the word used locally does not mean it was never used — particularly on a general level. Edited October 7, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2019 Author Posted October 7, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, rockpond said: Has masturbation ever been cause to deny a recommend? Yes, historically. A mission application as well. Conceivably, it still could be under the newly revised interview questions if the priesthood leader discerns that the individual is not making a sincere or earnest effort to overcome a habit. That’s how I read the questions, anyway. Edited October 7, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2019 Author Posted October 7, 2019 5 hours ago, kllindley said: I absolutely believe they can be worthy while working to overcome habits or compulsive behaviors. That is consistent with counsel President Oaks gave nearly a decade ago. Unfortunately some Bishops and Stake Presidents have not been following it. I don’t doubt you. But I would like to read the statement by then-Elder Oaks. Do you have a link or a cite?
rockpond Posted October 7, 2019 Posted October 7, 2019 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Yes, historically. A mission application as well. Conceivably, it still could be under the newly revised interview questions if the priesthood leader discerns that the individual is not making a sincere or earnest effort to overcome a habit. That’s how I read the questions, anyway. When was that taught? That masturbation was cause to deny a temple recommend or a mission application?
rockpond Posted October 7, 2019 Posted October 7, 2019 29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: The usual stuff we see around here. The Flood. A literal Adam and Eve. Evolution. Infallibility of prophets. Everything the anti's love to push that no one actually believes. No one actually believes the flood or a literal Adam and Eve?
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2019 Author Posted October 7, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, rockpond said: When was that taught? That masturbation was cause to deny a temple recommend or a mission application? Throughout my youth, at least. I can’t give you chapter and verse, because I wouldn’t have been privy to guidelines given to local priesthood leaders on such a sensitive subject. But I can tell you it was widely understood that the habit, unless overcome and repented of, could render one ineligible for a temple recommend or recommendation for a mission. Edited October 7, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
kllindley Posted October 7, 2019 Posted October 7, 2019 9 minutes ago, rockpond said: When was that taught? That masturbation was cause to deny a temple recommend or a mission application? The closest I can think of is in "The Miracle of Forgiveness."
rockpond Posted October 7, 2019 Posted October 7, 2019 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Throughout my youth, at least. I can’t give you chapter and verse, because I wouldn’t have been privy to guidelines given to local priesthood leaders on such a sensitive subject. But I can tell you it was widely understood that the habit, unless overcome and repented if, could render one ineligible for a temple recommend or recommendation for a mission. 3 minutes ago, kllindley said: The closest I can think of is in "The Miracle of Forgiveness." Thanks for the replies. I was curious because it seems to be something that some believe but I've never been able to find anything official on the matter.
bluebell Posted October 7, 2019 Posted October 7, 2019 5 hours ago, kllindley said: I absolutely believe they can be worthy while working to overcome habits or compulsive behaviors. That is consistent with counsel President Oaks gave nearly a decade ago. Unfortunately some Bishops and Stake Presidents have not been following it. I know that many bishops are encourage men with porn habits (who are trying to repent) to go to the temple more. Wives talk about it all the time in latter-day saint mommy facebook groups 1
CV75 Posted October 7, 2019 Posted October 7, 2019 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: The usual stuff we see around here. The Flood. A literal Adam and Eve. Evolution. Infallibility of prophets. Everything the anti's love to push that no one actually believes. Then I would say it is generous to call that a "perspective"! 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: So you think different people follow different spirits? Like ouija boards or something? Dead guy A vs dead guy B? This is the kind of ambiguity that I think confuses everyone- it's Mormonese. Like the idea that even Jesus Christ is the savior. Like there are a bunch of saviors and even Jesus is one? Who else did you have in mind? Where did that usage come from? And that "dammed" as in "the flow of water is stopped" is the same word as "damned" which means that one goes to hell for eternity? "The spirit of revelation".... "The spirit of contention"..... Like are these actual spirits or is what is meant ? I think Some of these usages come straight out of the 18th century- the way we talk we should be Amish... Yes, I do believe different people follow different spirits, beginning with our very own. What other choice do we have; we're not automatons... That is the only way we can exercise agency as to what to attend to and follow, whatever else that may be. I think we can go so far as to say that our own spirit is a “holy spirit” as the Holy Spirit prompts needed knowledge to come to the surface. I think lesser spirits can prompt us as well, but in other directions. We’ve adopted a community language that we must often explain as we introduce new concepts to those unfamiliar with them, or else use terms more familiar to them. I think this can be satisfactorily worked out when people communicate in good faith, and certainly in a temple recommend interview. I think the wording of the interview is more to encourage the member to recognize truth and so benefit from the privilege of temple activity than it is to enforce correct beliefs and practices. I think enforcement comes through the disciplinary process once one’s conscience is expressed as opposition.
kllindley Posted October 7, 2019 Posted October 7, 2019 46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don’t doubt you. But I would like to read the statement by then-Elder Oaks. Do you have a link or a cite? I went looking for the quote, which I could not find as clearly as I remembered it. In his April 2005 talk, he does encourage temple attendance in the section on escaping pornography. However the context of the specific paragraph is doing everything we can to avoid pornography. This guide: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.overcomingpornography.org/bc/content/op/content/OP/individual/Make_Plan_Recovery.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiZh5eB8orlAhUQrp4KHXqgAIAQFjAIegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1PCe4stbnGsTi6sh-iKtIH To creating a plan to overcome pornography use includes temple attendance.
kllindley Posted October 7, 2019 Posted October 7, 2019 6 minutes ago, bluebell said: I know that many bishops are encourage men with porn habits (who are trying to repent) to go to the temple more. Wives talk about it all the time in latter-day saint mommy facebook groups This is excellent to hear. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2019 Author Posted October 7, 2019 9 minutes ago, bluebell said: I know that many bishops are encourage men with porn habits (who are trying to repent) to go to the temple more. Wives talk about it all the time in latter-day saint mommy facebook groups Do they post under their real identity? I ask, because I should think a spouse’s porn addiction ought not be a thing one chatters about on Facebook.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2019 Author Posted October 7, 2019 7 minutes ago, kllindley said: I went looking for the quote, which I could not find as clearly as I remembered it. In his April 2005 talk, he does encourage temple attendance in the section on escaping pornography. However the context of the specific paragraph is doing everything we can to avoid pornography. This guide: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.overcomingpornography.org/bc/content/op/content/OP/individual/Make_Plan_Recovery.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiZh5eB8orlAhUQrp4KHXqgAIAQFjAIegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1PCe4stbnGsTi6sh-iKtIH To creating a plan to overcome pornography use includes temple attendance. Thanks for your effort. I’ll take a look.
Recommended Posts