Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
If it has anything to do with your relationship to God, then no. Otherwise, yes. But you already knew that. I think you should go drink that beer. DevilsAdvocate wrote:All I need to hear is the subject “tithing” and I already know the rest of the story. They will undoubtedly say something along the lines of “it won’t be easy, but it will be worth it” and will quote some scriptures and maybe add in a story about someone who had the faith to pay tithing and then everything magically worked out and they were blessed and able to pay all their bills and everyone involved was just as happy as could be. Well what about any people who paid tithing and weren’t quite so lucky?
Anyway I don’t think most of these Church leaders really know any better, as far as I’m concerned they are just men trying to interpret things based on their own perspective and what they have been taught. If you take some men that already have the point-of-view that they are inspired and favored by God and they are surrounded by others that agree with them I can’t imagine that it would be very easy for them to ever consider the possibility that maybe some of their opinions are highly questionable or flat-out wrong.
Yep. I’m so tired of hearing anecdotes equated to eternal principles. Maybe there’s a place for FPSs (faith promoting stories … I learned a new acronym!), but they tend to make me even more cynical that I usually am. If the original question was ‘should we be apathetic about GC talks in general?’, then I would have to agree that would be a safe approach. That way you might get a pleasant surprise every now and then.
Brian Johnston wrote:I have the whole Journal of Discourses and a separate book of the Discourses of Brigham Young at my disposal.
Brian, thanks for the independent confirmation that Brigham Young said a lot of things …
… but I’m actually serious about this. I know I should resist the temptation to get sucked into the culture of quotations ( … and anecdotes), but sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire. A lot of meaning can be packed into that short sentence. Of course it depends on the delivery, but I imagine that if/when President Hinckley uttered those words, it was spoken in such a way as to be pregnant with possibilities. In that case I would probably need some video, but I’d be happy with just a reliable transcription. Did he actually say that? Help.
I can find several attributions such as
thisQuote:The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th, and 9th charges were sustained. The 4th and 5th charges were rejected, and the 6th was withdrawn.
So much was going on at the time, it’s hard to know which of these charges had any basis in fact, and which were politically motivated. Oliver did not attend his disciplinary action, but responded to the charges in a letter. It’s clear he felt he was justified in what he did or didn’t do.
I always thought he was an annoying twit, but I suppose that’s because of how he’s portrayed in church films. Not sure where else I would have got that from. Yes, he was excommunicated in 1838, and rebaptized in, I think, 1848 in Winter Quarters. Here are the charges against him. I think I might be guilty of some of them: Quote:First–For persecuting the brethren by urging on vexatious law suits against them, and thus distressing the innocent.
Second–For seeking to destroy the character of President Joseph Smith, Jun., by falsely insinuating that he was guilty of adultery.
Third–For treating the Church with contempt by not attending meetings.
Fourth–For virtually denying the faith by declaring that he would not be governed by any ecclesiastical authority or revelations whatever, in his temporal affairs.
Fifth–For selling his lands in Jackson county, contrary to the revelations.
Sixth–For writing and sending an insulting letter to President Thomas B. Marsh, while the latter was on the High Council, attending to the duties of his office as President of the Council, and by insulting the High Council with the contents of said letter.
Seventh–For leaving his calling to which God had appointed him by revelation, for the sake of filthy lucre, and turning to the practice of law.
Eighth–For disgracing the Church by being connected in the bogus business, as common report says.
Ninth–For dishonestly retaining notes after they had been paid; and finally, for leaving and forsaking the cause of God, and returning to the beggarly elements of the world, and neglecting his high and holy calling, according to his profession.
I assume you mean apathy on your part. I think some perspective is called for. I know that some people like to dismiss dark spots in church history. I recall GBH making such an appeal in one of his interviews. “Hey, that was X years ago. It’s ancient history”. I don’t buy that argument. It will always be part and parcel of the church and its legacy. For a perfect organization, such things are of course inexcusable. This is proof to me (if I needed any) that a big part of the church as we know it and deal with it on a daily basis is man-made — i.e. not perfect. This past GC is further proof of that. It had some good parts and some bad parts. I think the bad pales in comparison to what has occurred in the past, yet somehow we can all deal with that at some level. I know I’m preaching to the choir, but our hope is that there is more to it than just the manmade part, and that amongst all the noise is the influence of God, and that in some measure we can tap into that to improve our lives and the lives of our families.
I think I’d call that insanity before I’d call it apathy.
Maybe I’m alone in this, but I never really thought of this as an anti-gay thing, so much as a family stability thing.
I think it’s both. In my experience, the most ardent supporters of prop 8 typically have an agenda. I used to think ‘homophobia’ was a really lame made up word, but the more I see, the more I think it’s descriptive of a lot, though certainly not all, such people.
If you are ‘legally and lawfully married’, what’s the problem? I know I’m missing something obvious, but as I recall there are no TR questions that specifically ask the question, nor is there anything in the endowment that would specifically disqualify a gay-but-legally-married person from participating. Speaking from a west coast perspective, I’m thinking that both of those things (TR interview and the endowment itself) would have to change in the eventuality of SSM becoming the law. But of course it’s already legal in other parts of the world, so what gives? cwald wrote:Pres. Monson came out said as clearly as you can say — “there is no middle way.”
Actually, he said there’s no middle ‘ground’. Maybe there’s no difference, but I see a different shade of meaning.
OTOH, he
didsay it doesn’t matter what color shirt you wear … or something to that effect. 
My wife pointed out that at some point in the future we’ll look back on the church’s statements about gays and lesbians with the same abhorrence we do about the church’s past statements about blacks, for instance. I think she’s right. It’s just a matter of time, though that is little consolation, I suppose. I think some of you need to learn the benefits of falling asleep during general conference. It does wonders for my nerves.
Seriously, though, I can see why people are upset. But why, if you feel so strongly that certain things that were said are wrong, should you pay them any heed? Just because they were said today doesn’t make them any less wrong than if they were said 100 years ago. Those people are all on their own journeys just like we are.
In the spirit of the ongoing MBTI discussion, and assuming that most of us are rationals or idealists, how can we reasonably expect more than a small percentage of general conference talks to speak to our needs? Musn’t be selfish. Any and all Hallowe’en events at church I’ve ever been aware of have been accompanied by the obligatory “no masks, please” caveat. Once upon a time, I recall hearing someone give a really scary-sounding explanation which I won’t dignify by repeating here. Aren’t some of you introverts? I’m surprised to see you saying you like it. I usually try to find a good place to hide.
