Jump to content

Church discipline proceedings on a member who no longer lives in the stake boundaries?


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Intellectual might is not the concern.

It kinda is.

14 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

They cannot and will not answer many of the tough questions or they will at the very least obfuscate in attempting to do so.

What does "cannot" mean?

And what "tough questions" do you imagine they "will not" answer?

14 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Elder Holland and GBH both got taken to the cleaners several years ago and both lied and did not give truthful answers.

Well, no.

Loaded questions, "gotcha" questions, etc. are not really legitimate.  That said, *boy,* I can think of a few questions that I bet would make John Dehlin squirm.

14 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

If you need a link to the interviews I’d be happy to provide them. Oaks would likely do the same thing. 

Sure.  Trot 'em out.  I question your characterization of them.  Like, a lot.

Did you see Elder Holland's Q&A at Harvard a few years back?  He did quite well, IMHO.

I am broadly unimpressed with John Dehlin.  Contrary to your suggestion, intellectual knowledge and competency matter in terms of having a fair, reasoned, substantive, and civil discussion about the Church and its doctrines, leaders, history, policies, etc.  It is Dehlin who "cannot and will not" have such a discussion.

Thanks,

Smac

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It kinda is.

OK but I’m not of the opinion you have to be really smart to just tell the truth.

What does "cannot" mean?

In many instances they cannot go on and just tell the truth because the truth would not be helpful a.k.a. it would tear down faith. That being said they cannot do it.

And what "tough questions" do you imagine they "will not" answer?

How about telling us how many excommunications they had to do back in the day for the Baseball baptism they did in several countries? Then they would have to explain what the baseball baptism deal was all about. That should raise a few eyebrows.

One could also ask why they are investing north of $1 billion a year in the stock market. And not just the market but many of the positions they hold in equities are in companies that would be considered sin stocks or vice stocks. They can also explain why it’s OK for a member to make a profit off of abortion gambling liquor tobacco and other types of vices yet they have to abstain from them.

Well, no.

Loaded questions, "gotcha" questions, etc. are not really legitimate.  That said, *boy,* I can think of a few questions that I bet would make John Dehlin squirm.

It’s not a gotcha question if you can just tell the truth. I’m sure we can all come up with something to make John Dehlin squirm. The issues isn’t  John Dehlin, it is the church leadership and how they handle the truth versus manipulation the truth. This is a problem because they have it as a matter of policy to withhold the truth or obfuscate in order to preserve faith. That said they withhold truthful information in order to keep people from losing their faith. By withholding information also can be best described as a lie. If you’re OK with them not telling the complete truth and so be it. I prefer to just have all the information that way I can make a decision based on actual facts instead of a manipulated set of facts.

Sure.  Trot 'em out.  I question your characterization of them.  Like, a lot.

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/bycommonconsent.com/2012/01/02/did-president-hinckley-downplay-deification/amp/
 

 

Did you see Elder Holland's Q&A at Harvard a few years back?  He did quite well, IMHO.

I’m sure he does quite well whenever he feels like it. Yet the issues is not how well he does. I believe most times he does tell the truth however there’s documented evidence he’s not a very truthful guy at times.

I am broadly unimpressed with John Dehlin.  Contrary to your suggestion, intellectual knowledge and competency matter in terms of having a fair, reasoned, substantive, and civil discussion about the Church and its doctrines, leaders, history, policies, etc.  It is Dehlin who "cannot and will not" have such a discussion.

I’m not real impressed with John Dehlin either. But like I said before the issue isn’t John Delin it’s the church leader ship. Or at least some of them. Problem is we don’t know which one is which except for a few and proven to not tell the truth.

Thanks,

Smac

 

Edited by secondclasscitizen
Link to post
18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Her version of what?

Yes.  The handbook allows for it.

Natasha gave her explanation. It's online. That you don't know that indicates a determined willingness to skip some of the evidence by not looking for it.

I know John, and I wish he was more 'solid' than 'let's play catch as catch can.'

Until the 15 stop engaging in sophistry and stay with the facts only, we will have problems as individuals and a group and a church membership.

Another one of my family members, back five years from a mission, walked out with the proviso "I want to stay, but 'they' need honor up and tell the real stories. And God made same-sex attraction. God made it, the Apostles are not going to unmake it."

Edited by JamesBYoung
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote

Natasha is (1) correct on why she was excommunicate,

Not according to the stake president to officiated at the council.  And Natasha wasn't even at the council.  

Why should we privilege the self-serving speculations of Natasha Helfer-Parker over the specific statements of the stake president who rendered the decision, and who therefore is a pretty good percipient witness as to the "why"?

Have you read Natasha's version?

Her version of what?

Natasha gave her explanation. It's online.

Again, her version/explanation of what?

Quote

That you don't know that indicates a determined willingness to skip some of the evidence by not looking for it.

You are being vague.  I am asking you to clarify.  

If you are referencing "why she was excommunicate{d}," yes, I am quite aware of her "version/explanation."  But you didn't answer my question.  Let me lay out my reasoning:

1. Natasha Helfer-Parker did not attend the membership council, nor did she schedule it, officiate at it or make the ultimate decision at it regarding her membership.  

2. All of the above was done by the stake president (with his counselors).

3. The stake president wrote her a letter, which she later publicized, and in which he specifically rebuts her "version/explanation" (that she was disciplined because of her "professional activities" as a therapist).

4. Given the foregoing, I ask you again: Why should we privilege the self-serving speculations of Natasha Helfer-Parker over the specific statements of the stake president who rendered the decision, and who therefore is a pretty good percipient witness as to the "why" {she lost her membership}?

Quote

I know John, and I wish he was more 'solid' than 'let's play catch as catch can.'

Until the 15 stop engaging in sophistry and stay with the facts only, we will have problems as individuals and a group and a church membership.

Meh.  Your stacking the deck here.

Quote

Another one of my family members, back five years from a mission, walked out with the proviso "I want to stay, but 'they' need honor up and tell the real stories. And God made same-sex attraction. God made it, the Apostles are not going to unmake it."

This is an unserious and immature, and substantively false, grievance.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

Natasha gave her explanation. It's online. That you don't know that indicates a determined willingness to skip some of the evidence by not looking for it.

I know John, and I wish he was more 'solid' than 'let's play catch as catch can.'

Until the 15 stop engaging in sophistry and stay with the facts only, we will have problems as individuals and a group and a church membership.

Another one of my family members, back five years from a mission, walked out with the proviso "I want to stay, but 'they' need honor up and tell the real stories. And God made same-sex attraction. God made it, the Apostles are not going to unmake it."

It's as if they themselves (leaders) have doubts, when they don't believe the members can handle the truth. If the church is true, nothing should/could stand in it's way. ETA: But then again look at me? I struggled after learning truths. So maybe it's a problem. But I wonder how I'd change if the church could have dialogue like we do on this board with members that are true believing discussing these things and them not having any problems with it, nice and out in the open.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
2 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

It kinda is.

OK but I’m not of the opinion you have to be really smart to just tell the truth.

You also don't have to be really smart to enjoy wife-beating and torturing puppies, and yet here you are.

</sarcasm>

Quote

What does "cannot" mean?

In many instances they cannot go on and just tell the truth because the truth would not be helpful a.k.a. it would tear down faith. That being said they cannot do it.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense.  

Quote

And what "tough questions" do you imagine they "will not" answer?

How about telling us how many excommunications they had to do back in the day for the Baseball baptism they did in several countries?

Oh, brother.  As I said earlier: "Loaded questions, 'gotcha' questions, etc. are not really legitimate." 

From Wikipedia (in an article about Elder Henry D. Moyle):

Quote

The controversial "baseball baptism" program was Moyle's idea to increase baptisms in order to fill the church meetinghouses. Missionaries would encourage young men to join sports leagues and used baptism as a prerequisite. Under this approach, large numbers of young men were baptized but very few were ever active in the church.[5] The rush to baptize was accompanied with the establishment of baptism quotas for missionaries and memorized missionary discussions which were to be delivered verbatim to potential converts. The rest of the apostles were largely opposed to these changes, which led to Moyle being relieved of his responsibilities in the missionary department.
...
[5] 
Quinn, D. Michael. "I-Thou vs. I-It Conversions: The Mormon "Baseball Baptism" Era" (PDF). Sunstone. Retrieved 26 December 2020.

As Quinn noted:

Quote

{M}any general authorities had misgivings, especially about Britain, where several apostles had served missions.  By May 1961, "nearly all" of the apostles were "gravely concerned about the pressures being put on missionaries to baptize to fill a quota of baptisms." BYU president Ernest L. Wilkinson added, "This of course was a criticism of President Moyle and many of the mission presidents working under his direction."
...
In January 1963, Apostle Mark E. Petersen arrived to preside over the missions throughout Britain, Ireland, and the French-East Mission.  Henry D. Moyle Jr. had presided over the French East since 1961, and his first missionary bulletin outlined the program for "baseball americain." Elder Petersen complained that " `baseball baptisms' were being made whereby youngsters were baptized into the Church without any instruction and sometimes without the knowledge or consent of their parents." He added: "Under President McKay's instructions, we were to discontinue such things and bring the missions back to a normal proselyting program."

Elder Moyle also had the pretty bad idea of deficit spending (also from Wikipedia) :

Quote

Moyle spearheaded much of the church's building program in the early 1960s. He believed that the Church Office Building, the headquarters of the LDS Church, should have been twice its size. He was also convinced that by building larger meetinghouses, the church would attract more converts. Moyle convinced McKay not to publish an account of church spending as was customary in order to hide the extent of the budget deficit caused by spending on buildings. By 1962, the deficit had reach $32 million. His optimistic building programs placed a considerable financial strain upon the church and McKay eventually relieved Moyle from many of his administrative responsibilities.

Both ideas were implemented, found to be bad, and corrected.  Conversely, Elder Moyle also had the idea of the Church investing in a cattle ranch in Florida, and that seemed to work out really well.

But what is the relevance of this stuff, which happend nearly sixty (60) years ago?  Both the "baseball baptism" and deficit spending ideas were abandoned long ago.  So you wanting to ask an apostle about this comes across as purely a "gotcha"-style inquiry.

Quote

Then they would have to explain what the baseball baptism deal was all about. That should raise a few eyebrows.

Yeah, they could do that.  Not very difficult.  

But again, that you are fantasizing about calling an apostle on the carpet to answer for something that ended nearly sixty years ago is pretty telling.  You want a "gotcha" interview, not a substantive, meaningful one.

Quote

One could also ask why they are investing north of $1 billion a year in the stock market.

Yes, one could.  But then, why would one?  We already know the answer to this.  The Church has already addressed this.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Church members are taught to “gradually build a financial reserve by regularly saving [a portion of their income]” (Providing in the Lord’s Way: Summary of a Leader’s Guide to Welfare [booklet, 2009], 2). The Church applies this same principle in its own savings and investments. In addition to food and emergency supplies, the Church also sets aside funds each year for future needs. These funds are added to Church reserves, which include stocks and bonds, taxable businesses, agricultural interests and commercial and residential property. Investments can be accessed in times of hardship or to meet the emerging needs of a growing, global faith in its mission to preach the gospel to all nations and prepare for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (see Gérald Caussé, “In the Lord’s Way: The Spiritual Foundations of Church Financial Self-Reliance,” Mormon Newsroom, Mar. 2, 2018).

Some investments serve a dual purpose. For example, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley stated that “we have felt that good farms, over a long period, represent a safe investment where the assets of the Church may be preserved and enhanced, while at the same time they are available as an agricultural resource to feed people should there come a time of need” (“The State of the Church,” Ensign, May 1991, 54). Another example is the Church’s participation in the development of downtown Salt Lake City. With its investment in the City Creek Center (a mixed-use development that includes retail space, residential units, office space and parking), the Church enhanced the environs of Temple Square and underscored a commitment to Salt Lake City, Utah, where it is headquartered. The investment increased local economic activity during a financial downturn and attracted visitors and residents to Salt Lake City’s historic downtown.

(Emphases added)

In legal parlance, your question has been "asked and answered."  So asking it again is not really legitimate.

Quote

And not just the market but many of the positions they hold in equities are in companies that would be considered sin stocks or vice stocks.

"Would be considered sin stocks or vice stocks?"  Considered by whom?  What companies?

Quote

They can also explain why it’s OK for a member to make a profit off of abortion gambling liquor tobacco and other types of vices yet they have to abstain from them.

What?

Quote

Loaded questions, "gotcha" questions, etc. are not really legitimate.  That said, *boy,* I can think of a few questions that I bet would make John Dehlin squirm.

It’s not a gotcha question if you can just tell the truth.

Meh.  What you are advocating here is not legitimate.  See here:

Quote

"Gotcha journalism" is a pejorative term used by media critics to describe interviewing methods that appear designed to entrap interviewees into making statements that are damaging or discreditable to their cause, character, integrity, or reputation. The term is rooted in an assertion that the interviewer may be supporting a hidden agenda, and aims to make film or sound recordings of the interviewee which may be selectively edited, compiled, and broadcast or published in order to intentionally show the subject in an unfavorable light.
...

Gotcha journalism is often designed to keep the interviewee on the defensive by, for example, being required to explain some of their own statements taken out of context thus effectively preventing the interviewee from clearly presenting their position. The intent of gotcha journalism is always premeditated and used to defame or discredit the interviewees by portraying them as self-contradictory, malevolent, unqualified or immoral.

This is what you are fantasizing of doing, I think.

Quote

I’m sure we can all come up with something to make John Dehlin squirm.

Yes.

Quote

The issues isn’t  John Dehlin, it is the church leadership and how they handle the truth versus manipulation the truth.

No, that's not the issue.  

You fantasizing about asking an apostle in 2021 about "baseball baptism" from six decades ago, or about investment of the Church's money, seems squarely in line with "interviewing methods that appear designed to entrap interviewees into making statements that are damaging or discreditable to their cause, character, integrity, or reputation," with "the interviewer ... supporting a hidden agenda" (such as, as one fellow recently put it, to "tear down faith"), with "keep{ing} the interviewee on the defensive," with having "{t}he intent ...  to defame or discredit the interviewees by portraying them as self-contradictory, malevolent, unqualified or immoral."

So it's not about "the truth."  It's about people like you wanting to "tear down faith."

Quote

This is a problem because they have it as a matter of policy to withhold the truth or obfuscate in order to preserve faith.

Utter nonsense.  Flatly, flagrantly, wildly false.

Quote

That said they withhold truthful information in order to keep people from losing their faith.

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  Specific quotations.  I will hold you to this.  If you don't respond, I will report you to the mods.

One of the great things about this board is that participants don't get to throw out wild claims when advancing an argument, and then refuse to substantiate them when requested to do so.  Hence the board rules require that when someone posts a "CFR" ("call for references"), the person making the claim is required to substantiate the factual claim they have made.

So, again, CFR.  Chapter and verse that leaders of the Church have said things that can be reasonably paraphrased as "{We] withold truthful information in order to keep people from losing their faith."

Quote

By withholding information also can be best described as a lie.

Oh.  So let's say I present the following questions to you:

  • 1. What is your full name, "secondclasscitizen?"
  • 2. What is your social security number?
  • 3. Where are your bank accounts?  What are the account numbers?  What are the usernames and passwords for these accounts?
  • 4. What was your annual salary each year for the last five years?
  • 5. What is your email username and password?
  • 6. What is your home address?

If you decline to answer these, you are "witholding information," such that - by your reasoning - you can "be best described as a" liar.  Right?

For the record, I don't buy into this.  At all.  I find what you are presenting here to be absurd and unreasonable and unfair and uncharitable.

Quote

If you’re OK with them not telling the complete truth and so be it.

You're hoisting yourself by your own petard.  

Quote

I prefer to just have all the information that way I can make a decision based on actual facts instead of a manipulated set of facts.

Sure.  Trot 'em out.  I question your characterization of them.  Like, a lot.

Oh, my.  I mean, I wasn't expecting to you so brazenly glorify "gotcha" tactics, but then you went and posted that video.

You are demonstrating my point.  In spades.  You are into "gotcha" stuff.  That's all.

You further demonstrate my point by pointing to Pres. Hinckley's off-the-cuff response during a 1997 interview:

Quote

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?

A: I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about.

Q: So you’re saying the church is still struggling to understand this?

A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. Knowledge, learning, is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education. We’re trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people that we can.

See, I find this response quite accurate and good.  The Church has never been shy about exaltation/theosis.  It's all published to the world.  But in the end, there is only so much we can say about it.  We also believe in the literal resurrection of the dead, but we "we don't know very much about" the mechanics of it, or about the particulars of it except as to some broad understanding of the timing of it, the "flesh and bone" stuff, and so on.  And even then, Pres. Hinckley was pretty darn candid.  "Well, as God is, man may become."

This, in your view, is "a lie."

The mind reels. 

Quote

Did you see Elder Holland's Q&A at Harvard a few years back?  He did quite well, IMHO.

I’m sure he does quite well whenever he feels like it.  Yet the issues is not how well he does.

Strange, then, that you previously said that the apostles "cannot and will not answer many of the tough questions or they will at the very least obfuscate."

What an ugly, and now admittedly false, characterization that was.

Quote

I believe most times he does tell the truth however there’s documented evidence he’s not a very truthful guy at times.

Well, no.

Quote

I am broadly unimpressed with John Dehlin.  Contrary to your suggestion, intellectual knowledge and competency matter in terms of having a fair, reasoned, substantive, and civil discussion about the Church and its doctrines, leaders, history, policies, etc.  It is Dehlin who "cannot and will not" have such a discussion.

I’m not real impressed with John Dehlin either. But like I said before the issue isn’t John Delin it’s the church leader ship. Or at least some of them. Problem is we don’t know which one is which except for a few and proven to not tell the truth.

Yeesh.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

  4 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

It kinda is.

OK but I’m not of the opinion you have to be really smart to just tell the truth.

You also don't have to be really smart to enjoy wife-beating and torturing puppies, and yet here you are.

</sarcasm>

·         This adds so much substance to the convo

  Quote

What does "cannot" mean?

In many instances they cannot go on and just tell the truth because the truth would not be helpful a.k.a. it would tear down faith. That being said they cannot do it.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense.  

Its true- you will see below

  Quote

And what "tough questions" do you imagine they "will not" answer?

How about telling us how many excommunications they had to do back in the day for the Baseball baptism they did in several countries?

Oh, brother.  As I said earlier: "Loaded questions, 'gotcha' questions, etc. are not really legitimate." 

From Wikipedia (in an article about Elder Henry D. Moyle):

  Quote

The controversial "baseball baptism" program was Moyle's idea to increase baptisms in order to fill the church meetinghouses. Missionaries would encourage young men to join sports leagues and used baptism as a prerequisite. Under this approach, large numbers of young men were baptized but very few were ever active in the church.[5] The rush to baptize was accompanied with the establishment of baptism quotas for missionaries and memorized missionary discussions which were to be delivered verbatim to potential converts. The rest of the apostles were largely opposed to these changes, which led to Moyle being relieved of his responsibilities in the missionary department.
...
[5] 
Quinn, D. Michael. "I-Thou vs. I-It Conversions: The Mormon "Baseball Baptism" Era" (PDF)Sunstone. Retrieved 26 December 2020.

As Quinn noted:

  Quote

{M}any general authorities had misgivings, especially about Britain, where several apostles had served missions.  By May 1961, "nearly all" of the apostles were "gravely concerned about the pressures being put on missionaries to baptize to fill a quota of baptisms." BYU president Ernest L. Wilkinson added, "This of course was a criticism of President Moyle and many of the mission presidents working under his direction."
...
In January 1963, Apostle Mark E. Petersen arrived to preside over the missions throughout Britain, Ireland, and the French-East Mission.  Henry D. Moyle Jr. had presided over the French East since 1961, and his first missionary bulletin outlined the program for "baseball americain." Elder Petersen complained that " `baseball baptisms' were being made whereby youngsters were baptized into the Church without any instruction and sometimes without the knowledge or consent of their parents." He added: "Under President McKay's instructions, we were to discontinue such things and bring the missions back to a normal proselyting program."

Expand  

Elder Moyle also had the pretty bad idea of deficit spending (also from Wikipedia) :

  Quote

Moyle spearheaded much of the church's building program in the early 1960s. He believed that the Church Office Building, the headquarters of the LDS Church, should have been twice its size. He was also convinced that by building larger meetinghouses, the church would attract more converts. Moyle convinced McKay not to publish an account of church spending as was customary in order to hide the extent of the budget deficit caused by spending on buildings. By 1962, the deficit had reach $32 million. His optimistic building programs placed a considerable financial strain upon the church and McKay eventually relieved Moyle from many of his administrative responsibilities.

Both ideas were implemented, found to be bad, and corrected.  Conversely, Elder Moyle also had the idea of the Church investing in a cattle ranch in Florida, and that seemed to work out really well.

But what is the relevance of this stuff, which happend nearly sixty (60) years ago?  Both the "baseball baptism" and deficit spending ideas were abandoned long ago.  So you wanting to ask an apostle about this comes across as purely a "gotcha"-style inquiry.

 

·         Im surprised you cited an Excommunicated Apostate (Quinn) . How can he possibly be trusted to be truthful? Additionally, why are there no church sources on this? You rely solely on an ex-comm, Wikipedia and Sunstone lol. All three sources the church would tell us not to trust.

  Quote

Then they would have to explain what the baseball baptism deal was all about. That should raise a few eyebrows.

Yeah, they could do that.  Not very difficult.  

But again, that you are fantasizing about calling an apostle on the carpet to answer for something that ended nearly sixty years ago is pretty telling.  You want a "gotcha" interview, not a substantive, meaningful one.

What a mess it would be to have to tell the membership that thousands of its missionaries engaged in a deceptive program to baptize people unwittingly into the church. It would be easy but they will never do it. 

  Quote

One could also ask why they are investing north of $1 billion a year in the stock market.

Yes, one could.  But then, why would one?  We already know the answer to this.  The Church has already addressed this.  See, e.g., here:

  Quote

Church members are taught to “gradually build a financial reserve by regularly saving [a portion of their income]” (Providing in the Lord’s Way: Summary of a Leader’s Guide to Welfare [booklet, 2009], 2). The Church applies this same principle in its own savings and investments. In addition to food and emergency supplies, the Church also sets aside funds each year for future needs. These funds are added to Church reserves, which include stocks and bonds, taxable businesses, agricultural interests and commercial and residential property. Investments can be accessed in times of hardship or to meet the emerging needs of a growing, global faith in its mission to preach the gospel to all nations and prepare for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (see Gérald Caussé, “In the Lord’s Way: The Spiritual Foundations of Church Financial Self-Reliance,” Mormon Newsroom, Mar. 2, 2018).

Some investments serve a dual purpose. For example, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley stated that “we have felt that good farms, over a long period, represent a safe investment where the assets of the Church may be preserved and enhanced, while at the same time they are available as an agricultural resource to feed people should there come a time of need” (“The State of the Church,” Ensign, May 1991, 54). Another example is the Church’s participation in the development of downtown Salt Lake City. With its investment in the City Creek Center (a mixed-use development that includes retail space, residential units, office space and parking), the Church enhanced the environs of Temple Square and underscored a commitment to Salt Lake City, Utah, where it is headquartered. The investment increased local economic activity during a financial downturn and attracted visitors and residents to Salt Lake City’s historic downtown.

(Emphases added)

Expand  

In legal parlance, your question has been "asked and answered."  So asking it again is not really legitimate.

·         I don’t have a problem with market investments, but they really should do their homework to make sure they are not unwittingly profiting off of vice. 

 

  Quote

And not just the market but many of the positions they hold in equities are in companies that would be considered sin stocks or vice stocks.

"Would be considered sin stocks or vice stocks?"  Considered by whom?  What companies?

From the most recent filing with the SEC:  https://sec.report/CIK/0001454984

Pfizer (PFE) Abortion Drugs

Amazon (AMZN) Search “adult sex toys” on the site and let me know if you think the church should be profiting off this
Carnival Corp (CCL), Royal Carribean (RCL): Cruise lines who profit off gambling and alcohol

Enova International (ENVA): Payday loans (usery)

Wal-Mart (WMT): Adult sex toys (Men’s and women’s masturbators)

Walgreens (WBA): Adult toys, tobacco, alcohol

I think you get the point>


 

  Quote

They can also explain why it’s OK for a member to make a profit off of abortion gambling liquor tobacco and other types of vices yet they have to abstain from them.

What?

If they do it, why shouldn’t we? See above

  Quote

Loaded questions, "gotcha" questions, etc. are not really legitimate.  That said, *boy,* I can think of a few questions that I bet would make John Dehlin squirm.

It’s not a gotcha question if you can just tell the truth.

Meh.  What you are advocating here is not legitimate.  See here:

  Quote

"Gotcha journalism" is a pejorative term used by media critics to describe interviewing methods that appear designed to entrap interviewees into making statements that are damaging or discreditable to their cause, character, integrity, or reputation. The term is rooted in an assertion that the interviewer may be supporting a hidden agenda, and aims to make film or sound recordings of the interviewee which may be selectively edited, compiled, and broadcast or published in order to intentionally show the subject in an unfavorable light.
...

Gotcha journalism is often designed to keep the interviewee on the defensive by, for example, being required to explain some of their own statements taken out of context thus effectively preventing the interviewee from clearly presenting their position. The intent of gotcha journalism is always premeditated and used to defame or discredit the interviewees by portraying them as self-contradictory, malevolent, unqualified or immoral.

Expand  

This is what you are fantasizing of doing, I think.

Ok whatever

  Quote

I’m sure we can all come up with something to make John Dehlin squirm.

Yes.

  Quote

The issues isn’t  John Dehlin, it is the church leadership and how they handle the truth versus manipulation the truth.

No, that's not the issue.  

You fantasizing about asking an apostle in 2021 about "baseball baptism" from six decades ago, or about investment of the Church's money, seems squarely in line with "interviewing methods that appear designed to entrap interviewees into making statements that are damaging or discreditable to their cause, character, integrity, or reputation," with "the interviewer ... supporting a hidden agenda" (such as, as one fellow recently put it, to "tear down faith"), with "keep{ing} the interviewee on the defensive," with having "{t}he intent ...  to defame or discredit the interviewees by portraying them as self-contradictory, malevolent, unqualified or immoral."

So it's not about "the truth."  It's about people like you wanting to "tear down faith."

  Quote

This is a problem because they have it as a matter of policy to withhold the truth or obfuscate in order to preserve faith.

Utter nonsense.  Flatly, flagrantly, wildly false.

You are sadly mistaken. See below quote from Packer talk

  Quote

That said they withhold truthful information in order to keep people from losing their faith.

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  Specific quotations.  I will hold you to this.  If you don't respond, I will report you to the mods.

One of the great things about this board is that participants don't get to throw out wild claims when advancing an argument, and then refuse to substantiate them when requested to do so.  Hence the board rules require that when someone posts a "CFR" ("call for references"), the person making the claim is required to substantiate the factual claim they have made.

So, again, CFR.  Chapter and verse that leaders of the Church have said things that can be reasonably paraphrased as "{We] withold truthful information in order to keep people from losing their faith."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teaching-seminary-preservice-readings-religion-370-471-and-475/the-mantle-is-far-far-greater-than-the-intellect?lang=eng

Here it is:  

 

“ Second Caution

 

There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.

 

Some things that are true are not very useful.

The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment. He should not complain if one day he himself receives as he has given. Perhaps that is what is contemplated in having one’s sins preached from the housetops.

Teaching some things that are true, prematurely or at the wrong time, can invite sorrow and heartbreak instead of the joy intended to accompany learning.

What is true with these two subjects is, if anything, doubly true in the field of religion. The scriptures teach emphatically that we must give milk before meat. The Lord made it very clear that some things are to be taught selectively, and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy.

It matters very much not only what we are told but when we are told it. Be careful that you build faith rather than destroy it.”

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng

“There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

There you go- now you can lighten up on the threats. lol

 

  Quote

By withholding information also can be best described as a lie.

Oh.  So let's say I present the following questions to you:

  • 1. What is your full name, "secondclasscitizen?"
  • 2. What is your social security number?
  • 3. Where are your bank accounts?  What are the account numbers?  What are the usernames and passwords for these accounts?
  • 4. What was your annual salary each year for the last five years?
  • 5. What is your email username and password?
  • 6. What is your home address?

If you decline to answer these, you are "witholding information," such that - by your reasoning - you can "be best described as a" liar.  Right?

For the record, I don't buy into this.  At all.  I find what you are presenting here to be absurd and unreasonable and unfair and uncharitable.

  Quote

If you’re OK with them not telling the complete truth and so be it.

You're hoisting yourself by your own petard.  

  Quote

I prefer to just have all the information that way I can make a decision based on actual facts instead of a manipulated set of facts.

Sure.  Trot 'em out.  I question your characterization of them.  Like, a lot.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/bycommonconsent.com/2012/01/02/did-president-hinckley-downplay-deification/amp/
 

Expand  

Oh, my.  I mean, I wasn't expecting to you so brazenly glorify "gotcha" tactics, but then you went and posted that video.

You are demonstrating my point.  In spades.  You are into "gotcha" stuff.  That's all.

You further demonstrate my point by pointing to Pres. Hinckley's off-the-cuff response during a 1997 interview:

  Quote

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?

A: I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about.

Q: So you’re saying the church is still struggling to understand this?

No he is saying its just a little couplet. It is more than that. It is emphasized and definitely believed. I recall being taught that somewhere….hmm where was that?

A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. Knowledge, learning, is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education. We’re trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people that we can.

Expand  

See, I find this response quite accurate and good.  The Church has never been shy about exaltation/theosis.  It's all published to the world.  But in the end, there is only so much we can say about it.  We also believe in the literal resurrection of the dead, but we "we don't know very much about" the mechanics of it, or about the particulars of it except as to some broad understanding of the timing of it, the "flesh and bone" stuff, and so on.  And even then, Pres. Hinckley was pretty darn candid.  "Well, as God is, man may become."

This, in your view, is "a lie."

The mind reels. 

  Quote

Did you see Elder Holland's Q&A at Harvard a few years back?  He did quite well, IMHO.

I’m sure he does quite well whenever he feels like it.  Yet the issues is not how well he does.

Strange, then, that you previously said that the apostles "cannot and will not answer many of the tough questions or they will at the very least obfuscate."

What an ugly, and now admittedly false, characterization that was.

  Quote

 
 

 

I believe most times he does tell the truth however there’s documented evidence he’s not a very truthful guy at times.

Well, no.

You didn’t watch the video I take it. ok

 

Link to post
23 hours ago, smac97 said:
Quote

This is a problem because they have it as a matter of policy to withhold the truth or obfuscate in order to preserve faith.

Utter nonsense.  Flatly, flagrantly, wildly false

So now I have provided the faithful link you asked for am I still a liar?

Link to post
21 hours ago, Calm said:

Interesting that in a post condemning falsehoods you post this. 
 

If you actually want truth...

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2020/07/what-does-richard-bushman-believe-about-the-book-of-mormon.html

Ok so he stated there were errors needing correction. So the narrative isn’t true then if correction need to be made. What am I missing?

let’s look at a math problem. If any part of an equation is solved incorrectly it then results in the wrong answer. That doesn’t mean all of the figures or solutions within the equation are wrong. Seems to be the problem here. Not all of the history, doctrine etc are incorrect. I believe what bushman is getting at is when taken in totality, the story isn’t true but parts of it are. 

Link to post
28 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:
Quote

 

Quote

This is a problem because they have it as a matter of policy to withhold the truth or obfuscate in order to preserve faith.

Utter nonsense.  Flatly, flagrantly, wildly false.

 

So now I have provided the faithful link you asked for am I still a liar?

I didn't call you a liar.

And your characterization remains utter nonsense and flatly, flagrantly and wildly false.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
16 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

So the narrative isn’t true then if correction need to be made. What am I missing?....I believe what bushman is getting at is when taken in totality, the story isn’t true but parts of it are. 

Quote

The good news for those who accept what ex-Mormons disparagingly call the “orthodox narrative” was, according to Bushman, that “nothing in the new material overturns the basic thrust of the story.”

But what does Bushman personally believe? “I still believe in gold plates,” he affirmed. “I don’t think Joseph Smith could have dictated the Book of Mormon text without inspiration. I think he was sincere in saying he saw God. The glimpse Joseph Smith gives us of divine interest in humankind is still a source of hope in an unbelieving world. . . . I believe pretty much the same things I did sixty years ago when I was a missionary.”

 

Actually from what Bushman says himself, it is the reverse, that the story is true even if some parts are not.

let’s look at a math problem”

History is not math. Narratives are likely never fully accurate due to gaps in the records as well as journals, etc will be written with significant bias.  By your standard, I am guessing one could say all history is not true. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...