Popular Post Navidad Posted February 9, 2022 Popular Post Posted February 9, 2022 18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Well, we can agree on this. Does this cancel his lifetime of service? That seems to be what some are asking for. Absolutely not! I hope no one calls for that. Both grace and forgiveness are a gift given, even when not deserved. That is the lesson of the atonement. 7
Popular Post Rain Posted February 9, 2022 Popular Post Posted February 9, 2022 (edited) 9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Speaking from sad experience, Ecclesiastes 10:1 Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honor. I suppose we all experience this to some extent. I wonder what the charitable response would be for Bro Wilcox? He certainly has been publicly judged. Now what? 9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I think the greater concern should be towards those harmed by Wilcox’s actions. What actions are being taken to rectify that? I have a brother who was a drug addict and alcoholic. He had a lot of problems, but he was a sweet man that would have literally take the shirt off his back to help others. There are many good things I could share about him. Unfortunately, when he was about 18, he and his friend stole a car, drove it to another state, got on some kind of high speed chase and ended up in the yard of someone. There was damage to the car and to the yard or maybe even the house. I was really concerned for my brother. I wanted to help him in any way I could, but I also understood his actions caused damage for the car and house owners. I would not have blamed them for being angry, nor would I have blamed their friends being angry for them as they "mourned" with them. So I did what I could do help my brother, but I recognized there was consequences from his actions, some of which was anger at him. He had to learn to deal with those and oh there were many. I told on here that I was surprised about Brad. I have worried about him because if he believes what he has said about the atonement then I feel there is a great burden on him. But there are consequences to his actions as well. Things he said have hurt people. They are going to feel some anger just like the car and house owner might have felt. He is going to have to learn to deal with those consequences and the cool thing is that the atonement may become much deeper in his heart than before if he will let it. But it's ok that people are feeling shock and anger. Consequences almost always affect other people. Let people mourn. When they are ready people will forgive and that's not the same time table for everyone. Edited February 10, 2022 by Rain 10
kimpearson Posted February 9, 2022 Author Posted February 9, 2022 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: If the distinction is still eluding you, it might help you to know that unlike General Authorities, general officers of the Church work at their respective callings part time and continue to be gainfully employed at their respective vocations — like a typical and dedicated elders quorum president or bishop or Sunday School teacher or ward Primary president. They don’t even put as much time into it as a mission president and companion — or any other full time missionary, for that matter. Could you please explain in detail why you think this point is so important to make other than it wasn't a member of the 70, quorum of the 12 or the First Presidency. Nobody has claimed that he was. How does your point relate to the content of the talk? 16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Well, we can agree on this. Does this cancel his lifetime of service? That seems to be what some are asking for. I question his lifetime of service as it appears he has been teaching these falsehoods for years. Just because you mix some truth in with some lies does not make it OK. Human beings for the most part all have good and bad in them. We will be judged by God for the total content of who we are. Brad will have to explain why he has been pushing these incorrect and damaging beliefs. Brad and God will determine the final decision. If we can't see the white, male, priesthood holding privilege being extended to Brad by so many, the damage will just continue to be repeated by supposed faithful good members of the Church. How many extend this same attitude towards John Dehlin, Denver Snuffer, Kate Kelly and Sam Young? Does the "bad" they have done cancel the good they have done?
HappyJackWagon Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 52 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Thank you. We are mostly in agreement I noted this earlier. Perhaps rather than outing the man for public humiliation,cancellation, and censure, which seems to be the new normal, there could have been a more charitable way to help him and move him along. That would be better than the expose-you-we-cancel-you all-Justice-no-charity-approach, imo. Perhaps the Church needs to revisit this way of communicating the message through popular speakers, or the way he presented it; however, it seems incongruous with what I have been hearing from other authorities. The message of the Restoration is good news, but it can’t get a positive response in todays climate no matter how it is couched. That’s just my opinion. I think the good news can always find an audience. Of course Wilcox's talk wasn't good It's not just a matter of how he said it, the beliefs behind what he said (even if he said it more articulately) is still a problem. The condescension and sexism and racism will not find an audience (at least not the kind the church wants) in today's culture. I understand the concern about cancel culture, but I don't know what the answer is. If a person does something publicly that needs to be corrected, it really should be a public correction. No one needs to ruin the guys life but there are also consequences for saying the kinds of things he did, which could impact his positions within the church and at BYU. Should someone who speaks like this continue going out for speaking engagements? I don't think so. Is that cancel culture, or just a natural consequence of a horrible presentation (which he had repeated many times)? 3
Popular Post SeekingUnderstanding Posted February 9, 2022 Popular Post Posted February 9, 2022 6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I don’t agree. Would you suggest ignoring TikTok as well? The braying crowd has become the arbiter of Justice for many. Social media in general is just an outrage machine and a net detriment to society. Users should use accordingly and with care. 5
Bernard Gui Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 23 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I didn’t say they were. None the less unlike previous similar talks this one was recorded in good quality and broadcast. This allowed for someone to easily save it and broadly disseminate it. I really don’t see why people want to fixate on this aspect rather than the horrendous talk and the damage done to all those that have heard it and similar over the years. It’s part of the new way we do things. If just “someone” disseminated it (not a Church person in violation of policy), I wonder if it was in good faith, or with the intention to cancel him That’s why I ask. Either could be a motive. IMO if someone has issues with him and his message there are less destructive ways to deal with it.
Bernard Gui Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 8 minutes ago, Navidad said: Absolutely not! I hope no one calls for that. Both grace and forgiveness are a gift given, even when not deserved. That is the lesson of the atonement. Indeed it is, even for General Authorities/Officers who mess up. 2
Bernard Gui Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Social media in general is just an outrage machine and a net detriment to society. Users should use accordingly and with care. Of course. Some have said, “Wait until this hits TikTok so the kids can see….” It’s the new reality. Quote And every move you make Every bond you break Every step you take I'll be watching you Every single day And every word you say Every game you play Every night you stay I'll be watching you
Teancum Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 14 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said: It wasn't intended to be used to convert people to the church. Hmm. Well then maybe to de-convert some? But was it not intended to strengthen those listening so in a way help convert? How successful do you think it was? 1
MiserereNobis Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Ad nauseum. Bad latin, but true. Sister Martha from your high school Latin class needs to smack you on the knuckles with her ruler. 3
Durangout Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Ad nauseum. Bad latin, but true. You are right: those topics have been discussed A LOT…but it appears we need to do it some more.
smac97 Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 1 hour ago, Durangout said: I would suggest that Gen Conf talks be assigned to address Wilcox’s botched fireside: Why are women not ordained? I tried to suss this out back in 2013: What Is The Scriptural Basis For Limiting The Priesthood To Males? Subsequently, Pres. Oaks spoke on this broad topic a few times: April 2014 General Conference: The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood April 2018 General Conference: The Powers of the Priesthood April 2020 General Conference: The Melchizedek Priesthood and the Keys In the end, I am not sure we have been given a "why." 1 hour ago, Durangout said: What we think about people of other faiths and their beliefs Oh, there's already plenty of information about this. 1 hour ago, Durangout said: Why was it that people of African decent weren't’ ordained until ‘78. From the "Race and the Priesthood" essay: Quote In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church. ... In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members. The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah. According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel. Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father. Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained. ... Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. I guess the Brethren could, over the pulpit, say "We cannot definitively ascertain the origins of the Priesthood Ban" as an augmentation to the above. Do you think that would help? I'm not sure it would. I think many of the folks who struggle with the origins of the ban want a "it was all straight-up racism, nothing more" declaration. On this point, I'm reminded of Daniel Peterson's take on this issue: Quote I don’t expect an apology, myself, and, if I were the one speaking, I wouldn’t offer one. (What President Nelson might do, of course, I do not know.) I expect that my disinclination to apologize will earn me considerable flak. It’s not a politically correct stance to take, and some, no doubt, will say that it’s an immoral one. I get that. But permit me to explain. I found the pre-1978 priesthood ban baffling and, to say the least of it, awkward, and I was absolutely delighted when the news of the revelation rescinding it reached me in Switzerland. Now, black men and boys could be ordained to the priesthood, black men and women of the appropriate ages could enter the temples of the Church, and black families could be sealed in those temples for time and all eternity. I still remember where I was when I heard the news, and I recall very clearly the glow that enveloped me for days thereafter. That said, though, I tend to resist confident assertions that the priesthood policy was, simply, the product of racism — whether Brigham Young’s or more general — that it was an evil mistake, and that the Church should therefore apologize for it. I have no theory of its origin to offer, no theological justification to provide for it, no apologetic to make on its behalf. I simply point to the fact that at least some Church leaders had hoped to rescind it earlier but felt themselves prevented (by the Lord himself) from doing so. I have reached somewhat similar conclusions (which are open to revision). See, e.g., here: Quote For myself, I lead toward the Brigham-Young-implemented-a-"policy"-around-1852-which-then-through-the-decades-became-entrenched-and-its-specific-provenance-lost-but-it-was-probably-a-product-of-19th-century-perspectives-on-race theory of the Ban's origins. But I cannot completely foreclose the possibility that it had revelatory origins, either. There were restrictions/limitations on the priesthood in antiquity, after all. We even have gender-based restrictions on the priesthood now that plainly have no particular relationship to innate worth or quality. And yet . . . there it is. More here. Thanks, -Smac 3
CA Steve Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 40 minutes ago, juliann said: You are wanting to use times when it was acceptable to say awful things so stop it. I am surprised at your reaction juliann. I still encounter church people who think it is acceptable to say this very sort of thing regarding LGBT and gender issues. Those times are right now. 1
Popular Post MiserereNobis Posted February 9, 2022 Popular Post Posted February 9, 2022 I didn't watch the speaker and I only skimmed a bit here and there on the thread, but I do want to address the "pretending church" comment. Obviously, I think he's wrong, but I'm not personally offended by it. I think it's because it comes from such a place of ignorance that it just doesn't affect me. I know that I am not pretending church. If he came and spent a day at the monastery with me he would know the monks aren't pretending church, either. Never ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed to ignorance. In this case, I think he's just ignorant. If someone who knew me accused me of pretending church, that would probably be a different matter, though, because the accusation wouldn't come from ignorance since they know me. Also on a somewhat related note, as a Catholic, I have a hard time getting upset with the exclusive "only true church" claims of your church, as some do. I mean, we make those claims, too. You don't accept our baptism, and we don't accept yours. You claim apostasy, which excludes us, but we claim apostolic succession, which excludes you. Anyways, carry on 13
smac97 Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 28 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Social media in general is just an outrage machine and a net detriment to society. Users should use accordingly and with care. You and I seldom agree, but a big "Amen" to the above statement. Thanks, _Smac 2
rongo Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 Several people have said that "so many" members have reacted strongly to this. I wonder what the reality is --- i.e., just how strong numerically the online Mormon issues outrage mob is compared to active members who are not dialed into this at all. It may not matter, as PR and media are kind of the tail that wags the dog. It will be telling what the actual aftermath is --- i.e., if he is actually released, or if the Church addresses it directly. Historically, the Church just lets it blow over. Aside from debate over what he said and how he said it, I think the outrage mob cancel culture reaction is sad. And it's everywhere. Even when the pendulum swings the other way (e.g., Whoopi Goldberg and Stacy Abrams, just this week), I don't like this new ritual of Stalin-esque show apologies that groveling transgressors are forced to undergo --- with the net result (unspoken) that they aren't really sorry, and haven't really changed their minds. It's a rote ritual people are forced to undergo when "wearing the hair shirt" --- this abasing oneself, promising to read up, promising to undergo sensitivity training, etc. I think this state of things will further lead to even more bland, "safe," correlated talks. Things are so parsed, teleprompted, and scripted as it is already. We never get to hear people speak what is in their heart and mind; it's more and more tightly-wordsmithed. The inaugural press conference for the current First Presidency even had a teleprompter in the back, and President Oaks was famously seen mouthing along President Nelson's ostensible personal answer to Peggy Fletcher Stack (scolding her about knowing her family, etc.). Time stamp: 19:03 This sort of tightly-controlled "messaging" is only going to get worse with even more people than before hanging on every word to make people offenders for a word. While many would seemingly rejoice if they could ensure that no more "embarrassing" things will ever be said again by our leaders --- through the tightest of message control imaginable --- I think this would be a terrible development. I think the "risk" of embarrassing statements is worth the "reward" of the gems that we get and have gotten over time from leaders who haven't been muzzled by message control. I think that people might get what they wish for. My prediction? I think the Church will let the initial statements stand, and let it blow over. Not unlike the Devin Durrant "ponderize" thing, or Elder Uchtdorf's family donations. I agree with that --- I think it's best to make the ritual, terse PR statements, and then move on. It would be a fascinating and unexpected development for me if there is any "throwing under the bus," General Conference mention, etc.
smac97 Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 1 minute ago, rongo said: Several people have said that "so many" members have reacted strongly to this. I wonder what the reality is --- i.e., just how strong numerically the online Mormon issues outrage mob is compared to active members who are not dialed into this at all. Well, it's getting a fair amount of news coverage: https://kutv.com/news/local/latter-day-saint-leader-brad-wilcox-apologizes-comments-about-race-lds-mormon https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/2/8/22923093/latter-day-saint-young-men-leader-apologizes-brad-wilcox-about-black-people-priesthood-mormon-byu https://www.rawstory.com/byu-professor-apologizes-for-comments-on-black-priests-in-the-mormon-church/ https://heavy.com/news/brad-wilcox-lds-video/ https://gephardtdaily.com/local/lds-church-youth-leader-apologizes-for-controversial-comments-made-from-pulpit/ https://www.eastidahonews.com/2022/02/lds-church-leader-apologizes-after-making-controversial-racial-statement-in-youth-meeting/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17591651/who-latter-day-saints-leader-brad-wilcox/ https://technotrenz.com/entertainment/brad-wilcox-is-the-current-leader-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-1649094.html https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/02/08/lds-leader-brad-wilcox/ https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2022/02/09/brad-wilcox-lds/ https://www.abc4.com/news/second-video-discovered-showing-lds-church-leader-making-controversial-race-statements/ From this last article: Quote Another video has resurfaced showing BYU Professor and Church leader Brad Wilcox making controversial comments regarding race. Wilcox, who serves as the Second Counselor of the Young Men General Presidency, came under fire after a recording of his controversial speech at a youth fireside on Monday went viral. Now, a second video posted on YouTube recorded in 2020 at a youth speech at the Georgia Atlanta North Mission in Lilburn, Georgia shows Wilcox making similar, controversial remarks about Church priesthood. Wilcox is referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ previous policy of withholding priesthood from people of “black African descent.” In the resurfaced 2020 video, Wilcox makes nearly identical comments about priesthood saying: “I don’t mean to be a little over-simplistic, but sometimes I just think that we make things too complicated. Why didn’t the Blacks get the priesthood until 1978? What’s up with that, Brother Wilcox? What, Latter-day Saints were prejudiced? What — Brigham Young was a jerk? I mean, you’ll hear a lot of things. But maybe we’re asking the wrong question. Maybe instead of asking why didn’t the Blacks get the priesthood until ’78, we should be asking why didn’t everybody else get it before 1829? I mean, why did they have to wait until 1829 to have the priesthood restored?” These comments closely mirror the ones Wilcox has been widely criticized over during his speech in Alpine. Oi. Dr. Ryan Gabriel's April 2021 devotional talk is, I think, a better approach. 1 minute ago, rongo said: It may not matter, as PR and media are kind of the tail that wags the dog. It will be telling what the actual aftermath is --- i.e., if he is actually released, or if the Church addresses it directly. Historically, the Church just lets it blow over. Are you sure? Do you remember this 2012 story about BYU professor Randy Bott? Quote In February 2012 Bott was quoted in a Washington Post article about the LDS Church's stand on race.[9] In the article Bott cited scriptures, former church teachings and practices, speculating on possible reasons for a ban on ordaining people of black African descent to the LDS priesthood. Whether Bott's reasons for denying ordination to black men prior to 1978 were ever official LDS doctrine or merely folk belief, as some LDS maintain, is disputed.[10] Bott said that one possible reason for the ban was the belief that black people descended from Cain through Egyptus, who married Ham, Noah's son. Bott pointed to a passage in Mormon scripture that suggested to him that Cain's descendants were marked with dark skin and were prohibited from holding the priesthood. Before the priesthood ban was lifted in 1978, some Latter-day Saint leaders had made similar statements. However, the 1978 revelation which lifted the ban said nothing about the reasons for the ban.[9] On February 29, 2012, the LDS Church issued a press release in response to the Post article, saying that the reasons for the ban are not precisely known, and condemning racism in any form.[11][12][13] Then, in December 2013, the LDS Church posted a page on "Race and the Priesthood" on its official website that described the ban on blacks receiving the priesthood as a product of an "American racial culture," not "divine disfavor." The statement formally disavowed the past teachings that sought to create doctrinal justifications for the ban: Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.[14] However, it has been pointed out that this stance did not publicly exist when Professor Bott was asked about the basis for the previous LDS ban, and therefore he was simply quoting the common teachings on the subject. Therefore this incident has been credited in some circles for pressuring the church into publicly airing its disapproval of past racist teachings.[15] Thoughts? 1 minute ago, rongo said: Aside from debate over what he said and how he said it, I think the outrage mob cancel culture reaction is sad. And it's everywhere. Even when the pendulum swings the other way (e.g., Whoopi Goldberg and Stacy Abrams, just this week), I don't like this new ritual of Stalin-esque show apologies that groveling transgressors are forced to undergo --- with the net result (unspoken) that they aren't really sorry, and haven't really changed their minds. It's a rote ritual people are forced to undergo when "wearing the hair shirt" --- this abasing oneself, promising to read up, promising to undergo sensitivity training, etc. Yep. 1 minute ago, rongo said: I think this state of things will further lead to even more bland, "safe," correlated talks. Things are so parsed, teleprompted, and scripted as it is already. We never get to hear people speak what is in their heart and mind; it's more and more tightly-wordsmithed. Oh, I dunno. Pres. Oaks and Elder Holland both seem pretty speaking-what-is-in-their-hearts-and-minds-ish. 1 minute ago, rongo said: The inaugural press conference for the current First Presidency even had a teleprompter in the back, and President Oaks was famously seen mouthing along President Nelson's ostensible personal answer to Peggy Fletcher Stack (scolding her about knowing her family, etc.). Time stamp: 19:03 Not seeing it. 1 minute ago, rongo said: This sort of tightly-controlled "messaging" is only going to get worse with even more people than before hanging on every word to make people offenders for a word. 1 minute ago, rongo said: My prediction? I think the Church will let the initial statements stand, and let it blow over. Not unlike the Devin Durrant "ponderize" thing, or Elder Uchtdorf's family donations. I agree with that --- I think it's best to make the ritual, terse PR statements, and then move on. It would be a fascinating and unexpected development for me if there is any "throwing under the bus," General Conference mention, etc. We'll see, I suppose. Thanks, -Smac 3
ttribe Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I’m not suggesting he was, but you must agree that there are many elements in our new society who seek out ways to cancel people and movements. The handbook says not to record meetings. Are you saying the recording was made and broadcast by the local or general Church? That was my understanding, yes, and then it was taken down when the outrage broke out. By then, there were copies everywhere so it was too late. But, before you ask, I'd have to go back and try to figure out where I got that understanding, so I'll just say that I could be wrong. Edited February 9, 2022 by ttribe 1
Fether Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 36 minutes ago, Teancum said: Hmm. Well then maybe to de-convert some? But was it not intended to strengthen those listening so in a way help convert? How successful do you think it was? Wilcox often aims his comments at people his comments will have little affect on. A lot of the anecdotes he uses to address difficult issues are fun small talk or preaching to the choir type statements. The type you use to make fun of those who aren’t in the club. But for those who are actually struggling with the issues, his statements have little affect, if not just creating more frustration for them. 2
Nofear Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: If the distinction is still eluding you, it might help you to know that unlike General Authorities, general officers of the Church work at their respective callings part time and continue to be gainfully employed at their respective vocations — like a typical and dedicated elders quorum president or bishop or Sunday School teacher or ward Primary president. They don’t even put as much time into it as a mission president and companion — or any other full time missionary, for that matter. From what I can tell, the bodies and quorums which constitute the General Authorities are all ones where the head of that body or quorum holds priesthood keys. The General Officers of the Church have authority delegated to them but priesthood keys are not contained within the organizations.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 5 minutes ago, Nofear said: From what I can tell, the bodies and quorums which constitute the General Authorities are all ones where the head of that body or quorum holds priesthood keys. The General Officers of the Church have authority delegated to them but priesthood keys are not contained within the organizations. Does the presidency of the quorum of seventy hold keys?
Calm Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: AFAIK, Church Zoom broadcasts are not usually recorded on site. It was a tristake fireside, it might have been recorded to be saved because it was seen as different than the usual local ones.
Kenngo1969 Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 17 hours ago, Buckeye said: Ding ding ding. We have a winner. 17 hours ago, Calm said: Did I? What do I get? Want a cookie? 🍪 Damn, now I'm hungry! 2
rongo Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 19 minutes ago, smac97 said: Are you sure? Do you remember this 2012 story about BYU professor Randy Bott? Randy Bott was a BYU professor. Brother Wilcox is a counselor in the General Sunday School Presidency. I think that's the difference here. One is more painful and embarrassing to "fire" than the other. A lot more.
boblloyd91 Posted February 9, 2022 Posted February 9, 2022 53 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: I didn't watch the speaker and I only skimmed a bit here and there on the thread, but I do want to address the "pretending church" comment. Obviously, I think he's wrong, but I'm not personally offended by it. I think it's because it comes from such a place of ignorance that it just doesn't affect me. I know that I am not pretending church. If he came and spent a day at the monastery with me he would know the monks aren't pretending church, either. Never ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed to ignorance. In this case, I think he's just ignorant. If someone who knew me accused me of pretending church, that would probably be a different matter, though, because the accusation wouldn't come from ignorance since they know me. Also on a somewhat related note, as a Catholic, I have a hard time getting upset with the exclusive "only true church" claims of your church, as some do. I mean, we make those claims, too. You don't accept our baptism, and we don't accept yours. You claim apostasy, which excludes us, but we claim apostolic succession, which excludes you. Anyways, carry on This is why it always has interests me that in general, Catholics and Latter Day Saints seem to often get along in religious discussions. I've seen it not just here but in other venues as well. It's ironic because like you said, our faith claims are directly opposed to each other 1
Recommended Posts