[grobert93]

On Own Now wrote:

Just in the interest of trying not to turn this into an ad hominem attack on the person of DAB, I think it is useful to point out that DAB is a very accomplished professional educator/administrator. He earned a PhD in Organizational Behavior from Purdue University, was a published author and college professor/administrator at the University of Arkansas College of Business before becoming the President of Ricks College and then leading the transition from Ricks College to BYU-Idaho. He left his high-arcing career at the age of 45 to become a Seventy in the LDS Church.

I think it is safe to say that he would now have a lot more money and live in a very comfortable retirement if he were not a General Authority in the Church. And as a GA, he gives far more personal sacrifice than any of us would be willing to give to such a cause.

I don’t agree with his take on this issue. I think it is unnecessary and promotes bad behavior. Over the years, I have frequently found his theological views to be quite different from my own.

But, I have to admit, with regard to the content of his character, it’s impossible for me to find fault in him.

If Bednar was not claiming to be an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, running the one and only true church… I’d completely understand and agree with you. From a non-church perspective he’s a fascinating individual with a deep history, just like literately all of the apostles and even the prophet. I have nothing “wrong” with them as men. They are fine.

When you claim to speak to Jesus and make choices that you claim Jesus approved of in a church that you claim Jesus leads, your “imperfect moral life” becomes relevant. It’s just the reality of being a celebrity, even if it’s religious. If Bednar was still employed or was retired and made these statements as a general nobody, sure I’d allow him to have any kind of opinion he wants. But when a man who claims to lead the church, claims to have authority, and has had a history of rebuking the faithful for not paying their tithing and for doubting the church, makes statements about losing religious freedom and his fears of government power, it is natural that he will be judged more harshly.

This is just my unpopular opinion, of course. I used to love Bednar, Holland and oaks when I was full believer back in the day.

[grobert93]

Roy wrote:

This really touched a nerve with me.

It is with this background that I read the excerpts from Elder Bednar’s speech and I have been flabbergasted.

Quote:

“While believers and their religious organizations must be good citizens in a time of crisis, never again can we allow government officials to treat the exercise of religion as simply nonessential. Never again must the fundamental right to worship God be trivialized below the ability to buy gasoline.”

The decisions around what businesses are considered essential and can remain open are imperfect. Closing down department stores but allowing Walmart to stay open because it has grocery is imperfect. The line has to be drawn somewhere but it will hurt – especially those businesses that were closest to the cut off line and shut down completely only to watch the competition stay open.

Elder Bednar states that the right to worship God is at least equal to the ability to buy gas.

2) I really need to buy gas. I suppose from a certain point of view it would be better to starve to death and go to heaven than to eat like a king and go to hell. That argument could be made but I am not sure that Elder Bednar is making it here. What he is trying to say is a mystery to me, that as long as gas stations are open then churches should also remain open? Is it just the label of non-essential that is offensive?

3) I very much dislike his use of the words “never again.” I understand this emphatic phrasing to be associated with the Holocaust and other genocides. It seems quite out of place for what I understand happened – the church taking voluntary and prudent steps to protect the membership and the public.

I giggled at this, having skimmed over his temper tantrum article in laughter and shock.

I think Bednar should demonstrate an example of his Christ-like claims by giving up that nice looking iMac and MacBook Pro in the video first before complaining about the gas stations being opened during a pandemic (so that, you know, doctors and nurses can fill up their cars on the way to work to save lives, while fully funded beyond their means apostles of the mormon church continue to enjoy 1st class amenities and “talk” to god for the rest of their life.

Perhaps Bednar needs to be reminded of the costs to run church buildings, power road lights (stop lights), pay road workers to maintain the roads and snow plows to remove the snow from the roads that his followers use to travel to church weekly? Not to mention the tithing members continue to willingly give to the church without blinking an eye.

No, Bednard, your freedom for religious worship hasn’t been affected nearly as much as your white privileged self would like to think. You just miss the control and power of knowing millions of faithful members are attending a church that funds your retirement.

/gets off soap box

[grobert93]

Roy wrote:

I am a member of a more orthodox group where this subject was discussed. I found it interesting how many people were against even this small relaxation. Reasons given were the “uniform of the priesthood,” that white represents the purity of Jesus Christ, that the Elders are supposed to stand out and be different and “peculiar”, that the dress is reflective of the respect we have towards the sacred message, and even that the Elders are often easily identified and remembered by this dress.

In short, every justification that we have ever used to defend the practice from outsiders is now being used to argue why the practice should not change. I see a pattern here with other issues as well. 😆

Arrakeen wrote:

Before the sister missionary dress standards were extended to all missions they also did a similar thing where it was up to the mission presidents to decide. This might similarly get extended to all missions in a year or two.

I am hopeful that in a decade or two the whole tie and white shirt thing can go away as an expectation at church. It is increasingly odd, seems mildly cultish, and can be a barrier to individuals feeling welcome at church.

It’s almost as if the church is being led by… men. Who don’t change unless political and PR pressure forces them too.

[grobert93]

PazamaManX wrote:

I remember hearing a talk given by a seventy once where he stated that we would get to choose where we would spend eternity. Rather than it being a judgement passed sentencing you to a particular place, our judgement would probably look more like a conversation (I guess maybe similar to one you might have in a bishops office?) and you would then choose where you would be most comfortable spending eternity. While I do have a few issues with this idea, it’s the one that seems to make the most sense to me personally.

It’s like… the concept of free will (as emphasized significantly in the plan of salvation) is applicable in the post life!

I am partially convinced the “three kingdoms” and such are more states of mind than physical places that are separated. It’s less like America, Africa and Alaska and more like a party inviting everyone to attend so rich people, poor people, nerds and athletics are all inside and sort of form their own social groups by nature of comfort.

I think this way because it’s been taught to me that the spirit world is that way. And also taught to me that “Hell” or “outer darkness” is a state of mind. So why not the rest of the kingdoms? I do not know where or why the “cannot progress or visit people in a kingdom higher than you” part came from, as it seems to conflict with the idea of eternal progression, but I do like to ponder what the more pure gospel of Jesus Christ may have been before the transition of man.

[grobert93]

Roy wrote:

I agree with what has been said.

The church at current does not want to apologize for past treatment or prejudices because too many of our members (and probably our leaders) believe that the priesthood ban came from God. We do not want to do anything to rock the faith of our long term stalwart members that are more invested in the ban being divine. Maybe the church will pivot at some point to say that BY and other church leaders of the past felt the ban was warranted given their reading of available scriptures and the racist societal ideas of the time. That when the brethren finally came together to ask God on the subject 100+ years later, He told them to “Stop it!” That God himself repudiated and condemned the ban. It would not have been the first time that God chastened his people.

I personally like the TR recommend question because it costs virtually nothing but it serves as a gentle reminder that our modern church standard is that God loves all of his children and we have been commanded to do likewise. We apparently wanted parents that were behind on their child support payments to know that they shouldn’t go to the temple in good conscience. The church turns at a glacial pace but maybe if we start having these conversations with our membership – that they cannot harbor racist ideas and still be right with God – then the next generation will be better prepared to take more substantive action.

I much prefer the idea of a temple recommend interview asking how we view and treat our fellow brothers and sisters than how we treat ourselves. I get why coffee and playing with ourselves is considered “evil” at church, but imagine if the questions were about sexual abuse, assault and race? Treating minorities and being loving? Imagine the difference in culture if the church practices christ like attributes.

[grobert93]

Ilovechrist77 wrote:

Thanks, MM, for sharing that. I’m glad to see the leadership is starting to become more lenient in this way, even if it be happening a bit slow. I agree with Nibbler said: Progress is progress.

Just wish they’d apologize for their non-lenient ways in the past; being told that it’s a sin, giving into temptation from satan or not being respectful to your priesthood when you Skype for longer than 45 minutes on Christmas with your family, removing your coat because it’s 100 degrees and the AC isn’t working, etc. If those were opinions of men, then they need to stop sharing them. If not, then God changed his mind big time as missionaries can now Skype weekly with their family.

[grobert93]

I think that the church (regardless of who believes it is the truth restored church or not) recognizes that it’s 2020 and nearly everyone has access to the internet and technology. This is a blessing and a curse for the church. Back in JS’s day they could “get away” with a lot more (not just their history and culture, but “sharing” the sacrament cup), because it was harder to communicate science and health concerns, not to mention that they didn’t have as much knowledge and resources as we do now. But now it’s 2020 and especially with COVID, many of us are doing virtual appointments with professional certified doctors and other medical specialists. We can gain access to knowledge such as “COVID virus spreads vis droplets” and come to the conclusion that perhaps partaking of the sacrament, while sacred to many, will not be immune to the health concerns related.

So the church has to adopt in an appropriate way to stay relevant enough to avoid legal issues and bad PR, while still trying to function mostly from “thus saith the Lord through his prophet” and “as inspired from our priesthood brethren” elements that the church depends on to stay authoritative.

In short, I love the survey and am grateful for it. I love the options the church has been “forced” to give it’s members in regarding these traditions and cultural expectations. I’m just smiling and internally shaking my head at how I was raised vs today’s world.

[grobert93]

Minyan Man wrote:

Our Stake sent out a survey asking members to vote on different opinions. Such as:

– When will you feel comfortable about coming back to church?

– Would you feel safe coming back to church?

– Would you feel safe taking the sacrament?

Growing up as a youth, it was drilled in my head that anyone who was a disciple of Jesus Christ and demonstrated their best imperfect faith in Him would be protected. We were taught that if we gave up career, education and family commitments to attend church every Sunday “no matter what”, that God would bless us in ways beyond imaginable. We were also occasionally taught that God protected his places of worship, that he protected the sacred sacrament and essentially that besides obvious health limitations, anyone could take the sacrament and attend church and would be protected, even if “doctors and health professionals” suggested otherwise.

Even on my mission I remember teaching many that god will protect his buildings, that the sacrament is sacred when in God’s hands.

It’s been a while and I’ve taken the path of leaving the church for numerous reasons… and now looking back at those claims I was taught, coupled with surveys such as what I’m quoting, really makes me stop and scratch my head.

Why shouldn’t we feel comfortable going to church? Isn’t church where God blesses us “no matter what”?

Safe taking the sacrament? I would have argued as a TBM a long time ago that of course, God will bless us to not get sick if we are exactly obedient.

It’s so crazy how the tables have turned.

[grobert93]

Arrakeen wrote:

I never saw the point of going to conference in-person. Doesn’t exactly strike me as entertaining. With the enthusiasm over home church, I’m expecting lots of talks about the importance of attending church meetings.

Ha, ha! This is hilarious because we know it’s true.

[grobert93]

DarkJedi wrote:

I’m not thinking this is going to be a permanent change, but it was announced today that October GC is going to follow the same format as April and be broadcast only. I know the conference center is a big deal and there’s a lot of money in it – but it looks like we could have lived without it. Very honestly for me GC this time was no different than any other GC because I sat home and watched on my TV just as I have for the past nearly 20 years. FWIW, I have never been to a live session of GC in the tabernacle or conference center. I was once at a Music and the Spoken Word live broadcast in the conference center.

I also think it’s early to be making an announcement like this, but the church does seem to be ahead of the curve in its response thus far so I’m fine with it. Maybe they’re expecting a possible resurgence or second wave by that time or don’t want to be responsible for initiating either of those. Text of the announcement I got:

Quote:

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

While some areas of the world continue to experience the effects of a serious pandemic, other areas do not. As a worldwide organization, we have an obligation to be good citizens and to act with caution as it relates to such a unique setting as general conference, which traditionally brings thousands of visitors to Salt Lake City from around the globe.

Because of our concern for the health and safety of others, we have decided that the October 2020 general conference will follow the same pattern as the conference held in April of this year. The general sessions will be broadcast as usual. However, the general sessions will not be open to the public.

Additional details about general conference, scheduled for October 3 and 4, 2020, will be shared as they are finalized.

We pray that the Lord’s choicest blessings will attend you.

Sincerely yours,

The First Presidency

I applaud the church this time. After plenty of bad press for various reasons this year so far, they have chosen to take no chances this fall. It’s for the best for everyone to avoid socializing when the second wave hits. Why am I convinced its coming? Because we have decided the virus doesn’t exist as a nation (even before the protests), but science doesn’t follow politics. I do fear for missionaries who are either unaware of the situation or who are too faithful for their own good and insist on serving the Lord regardless of health and safety concerns. Hopefully the church can step up on their a-game of “prophecy” and “revelation” this time in October and address issues directly, provide correct an helpful advice concerning how to stay safe. Or we will be reminded of the earthquake in SLC a few months ago and they will insist we continue to pay tithing to repair the temple. I’ve lost my benefit of the doubt with the church at this point so nothing “surprise” me anymore. Nelson will probably blame the pandemic and protesting on us still using “mormon” and announce a new logo for something.

[grobert93]

“None of it is”. With that said, some people need busy work, other people need structure. Since giving out busy work and structure and calling it a law gives you power, it makes sense that the church teaches to do so much. As long as there are still people who believe that the prophet is called from god and that the church is restored with god’s authority, there will always be people who will listen and obey to anything the leadership says to do, no questions asked

For the rest of us, just get used to being “lonely” in the sense of not feeling like everything is right, but not being allowed to do anything about it

[grobert93]

Heber13 wrote:

It was interesting to read the reaction of people in comments below that article. People still doubt if it is a significant danger to expose others or not. Some reactions…”180 exposed…zero become sick.” Things like that.

So there is a wide range of opinions out there.

Some will say “God will protect us.”

Others will say “God is trying to protect us by telling the experts to direct us all to stay distant and wear face coverings.”

Others will say “There is nothing to protect us from.”

On mothers day I called my family. My dad was complaining about shops being closed. My parents were shaking their heads in disgust. I mentioned our concern with my spouse working in public still as an “essential” worker and how I hope we will be ok. My parents said there was noting to worry about because there was nothing happening.

It’s amazing.

nibbler wrote:

…and we’re off:

https://www.ksl.com/article/46755370/utah-area-presidency-approves-utah-latter-day-saint-wards-to-meet-again” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.ksl.com/article/46755370/utah-area-presidency-approves-utah-latter-day-saint-wards-to-meet-again

Quote:

In a letter to stake presidents, the area presidency approved all Utah wards to enter into the first phase of the church’s reopening plan and hold in-person meetings again, with added precautions.

Finally, I can go shopping on Sundays in peace now, instead of being judged by obvious mormons (who dresses up to go shopping in Costco?) who are also shopping.

Old-Timer wrote:

A friend said on one Facebook post, “I will wait and see what the prophet says.”

I responded, “He already has spoken. We closed church, and even temples, completely before most other churches.”

The friend didn’t respond.

But.. but the prophet was only following government orders to avoid lawsuits. He… he wasn’t really talking to god in THAT instance.

[grobert93]

DarkJedi wrote:

As I’ve had time to digest some of these guidelines and ponder them a bit I find them quite vague/nondescript. I hope when implementation actually comes there is more clear and defined guidance – but I’m at the same time pessimisticly doubtful.

DW and I had a brief discussion while on our evening walk. She actually had a couple good suggestions. Why don’t the people blessing just wear gloves? She’s not sure they normally do or would properly wash. Her other thought was why not put the bread in cups like the water? It would take longer but it would be less apt to be touched by someone else. That said, I too like Roy’s suggestion.

I’ve seen that discussion about whether breaking the bread is part of the ordinance. I think it’s a matter of interpretation. When I do it at home I bring our two small pieces of bread to the table already broken.

I can’t help but pop in and remind everyone that while these guidelines are good, there are active believing members of the church who do NOT believe the virus is a bad thing, is as bad as the general public see it, or even exists at all. Just imagine how many active members will create contention from this situation because they don’t even believe the virus is real.

[grobert93]

Cadence wrote:

Faithful members are finding out what those who left already knew. Less Mormon church is better. When you are in control of your Sundays, not you Sundays controlling you, you tend to be happier.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IMO slight correction.

When you are in control of your Sundays and your daily life choices, not old men claiming to speak to God controlling you, you tend to be happier.

[grobert93]

Oh boy.

Yes, let’s ignore the hate, discrimination, outright lies, abandonment and hypocrisy led by, supported by and taught by the prophets and apostles of the church.

This is hilarious. And terrifying to know that intelligent and functioning adults will read this and other things and nod their head in agreement without question.

Thankfully this guy isn’t important enough in the church yet to be considered doctrine-speak.

Ugh.

[Author]

Posts