[Kipper]

How do we reconcile two people having different revelations about the same issue? This must happen often as I’m sure many people have have had a witness or personal revelation that TSM is a prophet and many have not. Personally I have been able to sustain him because I know the protocol was followed and that includes being prepared along with several other apostles for many years. Not because of intense prayer or pleading for a revelation. (Not ment to be ad hominem :angel: , only describing personal experience). Probably not the right reasons but I also look inside myself for opposing viewpoints or feelings and haven’t surfaced any. This is with a personal history of not appreciating President Monson for 30 years because of all his warm fuzzy stories meant to manipulate my emotions that I sometimes wonder if the origins are true. Even my relationship with my wife consistently turns up different personal revelations about the same issues that have caused consequences not so positive in our home however she is a temple goer and I am not, but that’s another thread I’ll hopefully get to soon.

[Kipper]

SamBee wrote:

Ad hominem means to the man or person. An ad hominem argument is when it is directed personally.

Thanks

[Kipper]

Old-Timer wrote:

Knock it off, you two. I don’t want to have to shut down this thread, but we won’t put up with personal attacks back and forth between participants. Take a couple of deep breaths and clear your emotions. You’ve thrown your punches; now hug and make up.

I don’t want to make you sit on a couch holding hands and singing Kumbaya to each other . . .

What color shirt do we have to wear?

[Kipper]

Kumahito wrote:

Kipper, I’m not going to rise and take the bait of your ad hominem attack. It actually gave me a bit of a laugh. Instead I’ll just note two things.

.

.

.

So, was that a “sharp witty response fueled unknowingly by confusion”?

Enjoy your faith crisis, Kipper. I really do hope you come out the other side with peace.

No kumahito it wasn’t bait it was substance and with a better delivery you may have found some of it useful. As Ray noted, it was delivered with the wrong tone and as I mentioned it won’t happen again. I noticed you didn’t acknowledge that. But then you have a great resume. I’m sure you have strong feelings about many things and aren’t afraid to say so which just appears to be more important than what you say. I have a feeling that if my delivery would have been smoother your reaction would have been the same. I’ll stand by my interpretation of your comments and yea, that was a sharp enough response. Congratulations.

I don’t even know what ad hominem means but it probably isn’t important. I will however look up I Corinthians Chapter 8 and remember who suggested it.

That last comment “Enjoy your faith crisis…” was a pretty good jab, I don’t really need to know you from Adam to know about you.

[Kipper]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

I think I understand that sustaining and supporting means submitting.

I would say that “full” support and sustaining, theoretically, “involves” an element of submission, absolutely, but I disagree completely that it “means” submitting.

I have offered my honest input in every calling in which I have served in my life, even when I disagre with something that is being said or proposed. Just yesterday, I mentioned to my Bishop after Sacrament Meeting a concern I had as a result of something one of the speakers said in a talk (a relatively minor thing, but something that is important to me). He thanked me sincerely, because it hadn’t registered that what was said might be interpreted the way I saw it potentially being interpreted by some people.

I went to him and told him my concern specifically because I “support and sustain” him – and I view sharing what I shared as critical to my effort to do so. Withholding something of importance is NOT sustaining or supporting, imo; in fact, I see it as the opposite of sustaining and supporting – or only sustaining and supporting in a bastardized way.

I always try to do so humbly and meekly, and every leader I have had has been grateful for my honest input and the way I have given it.

Thanks for the clarity that helps me understand what sustaining (can) mean. I would like to know or see if the church has an official definition on what it means to sustain.

For the record when I said “I think I understand that sustaining and supporting means submitting.” is was more of a question than a statement. Taken from hearing comments from church leaders like “…even if he is wrong he is right.”

[Kipper]

Old-Timer wrote:

Kipper, sincere question:

Where did the tone of that last comment come from?

The people here have all kinds of views and feelings about the topics discussed. For example, I love the symbolism of wearing a white shirt to administer the sacrament, since it ties it to baptism (as Elder Holland explained in his talk about this topic). However, I don’t like at all the enforcement of white shirts to administer the sacrament, especially since Elder Holland said in that talk that white shirts should not be a requirement – and since it says exactly that in the handbook. I also don’t like the idea that a white shirt and tie (and suit coat) is a “uniform of the Priesthood”.

We aren’t about enforcing or proposing one way for everyone to see things. We aren’t about convincing people they are wrong. Our central mission is focused on helping people find ways to stay LDS – and even that means different things for different people.

Yes, there is venting that occurs – especially about issues when people have passionate feelings, but we don’t encourage or allow venting just to vent. We have shut down threads that turned into nothing but vent sessions. There are plenty of other sites for that.

We are about encouraging people to find solutions that work at the individual level.

So, back to the topic at hand, my own feelings about white shirts are mixed, as I described above. I don’t have ANY problem with the official, written policy of the Church; I have problems with the unofficial, unwritten interpretations of too many people in the Church – the interpretations that, ironically, are not in line with what the Church itself actually teaches. In this case, I (and most of us here) am saying:

Quote:

“We need to quit building hedges about the law. We need to quit making up rules that actually obscure the message an apostle taught when he spoke about this topic. We need to stick to what he actually said.”

Ray,

Thank you for the gentle but firm reprimand. Sorry if my tone offended kumihito or anyone else. I’ll try to use humor or somehow tone it down if there is a next time. I get this way when I have discussions with friends or acquaintances who feel they have to say borderline derogatory things about the church in an effort to lower it in stead of raise themselves. I have a friend who is useless to me as a confidant. He is no longer active and comes up with wild church or member related stories intended to get me feeling the same way he does but those things aren’t entirely true I can’t just sit quietly. I just want to discuss facts and solutions or ways to deal with confusion about things that don’t seem right. I don’t want inserted emotional triggers. Sometimes so much effort is put into describing a feeling rather than a real issue that ridiculous comments are inserted to up the emotion of the reader. I think I read some of those things here that sounded nuts (to me) and my emotional response was all I could come up with at the time. Sorry, I have had better technique. I do believe my substance was in line and I some good points that could have otherwise been useful but if I had it to do over I would spend more time on the delivery. So in the future if I feel the need to respond with disagreement I’ll use this as a learning experience.

On a side note, my faith crisis is stalled I am finding no help in my personal life and, well, I am just stalled out.

[Kipper]

I thought I was entering a forum of wisdom and would be guided in my crisis. Now I’m seeing it more as a place to vent and be opinionated and am concerned about misguidance. So wearing a white shirt is Christ’s uniform? Never heard that. Of course Christ wouldn’t care what color shirt you’re wearing. Of course your worthiness isn’t determined by your dress code and who the heck is judging character by looking at a shirt, smile or visible garments. “We” haven’t developed that knack at all. … he’ll never considered for priesthood advancement or a leadership position so long as he persists in wearing that devilish blue shirt to Church. Really??? No wonder you get so worked up since you will never find consistent agreement on any of these made up issues. I’ll wait for the inevitable sharp witty response fueled unknowingly by confusion but in an effort to head it off here’s a thought, it’s really very simple. If you were going to meet a broker to finance an investment or if you were going to accompany your spouse or child to a banquet or to dinner at the boss’s house or if you were going to meet with the GM and the board at work or if you were going to your child’s wedding…wouldn’t you dress up a little and in some cases dress up the best you possibly could out of respect if nothing else? If you would dress up for a man wouldn’t you dress up in the presence of God? It’s really nothing more than that, dress however you want, nobody is judging you, it is The Lord’s house and we are all free to show our respect and reverence how we want. For most it will be in our best cleanest attire. And white is a symbol of purity. There’s nothing more to it than that.

[Kipper]

Kumahito wrote:

A corollary to this thread that I’m interested in is this: just how do we think that TSM has been “called of God” as THE prophet, seer and revelator and president of the Church?

In system we’ve got, the senior apostle, the president of the Q12 always becomes the next president of the Church. It would be practically inconceivable for the senior apostle to get passed over for someone lower down the totem pole, right? So considering that, is TSM just the lucky guy who outlived all his predecessors? Did God perhaps “call home” some of the more senior apostles to make way for TSM? If Boyd Packer were to pass away tomorrow (God forbid) does that mean God didn’t want him to be the prophet? Or did he just get old?

Considering the priesthood line of succession in the Q12 and how it’s gone, unchanged and unchallenged since BY, I don’t think it’s tenable to say that TSM was “called of God” in the sense that of all of the millions of priesthood holders in the Church, TSM was called out from among us at this time to be the prophet. I think the best that can be said is that TSM was called to be an apostle 50 or so years ago, and over that time God has tutored and moulded him to someday assume the leadership position of President of the Church, and as such to qualify for the mantle of THE prophet, seer and revelator.

Anyway, just curious how exactly others believe TSM was “called of God.”

Could it be that all the Q12 are in a state worthy, ready and able to be the next church president? So at the time they are called into the Q12 they are called and when it’s time for the senior apostle to take over, any one of them have been prepared and now are given the keys.

[Kipper]

wayfarer wrote:

Kipper wrote:

Back in the late ’80s when I was trying to reactivate in the church, and thru the ’90s I would cringe whenever TSM would be a speaker at conference. I just did not like his style and methods for getting his points across. It was like he was trying to fool me or manipulate my emotions into believing and I wasn’t buying it. Fast forward ~20 years and now he is the current President and Prophet of the church. I struggle and still don’t enjoy his talks, he brings too much personal character to the pulpit, but I can sustain him as a prophet called to lead this church because I believe he was chosen by God to do so and no man could lead this church in an inappropriate way or direction, at least for our salvation. God would not let it happen. That’s what I believe.

I love the idea that we as saints can land at the same place through different paths. Not to take away what you said above, but I have always enjoyed Pres Monson’s talks, and love the personal character he brings to the pulpit.

Yea, me too. We do not all draw from the same life experiences or from the same mold.

wayfarer wrote:

I can imagine that being the leader of the church would involve an extreme difficulty: what thrills one person might likely put off another. But pleasing mankind isn’t necessarily what it’s all about. Properly thought of, a prophet will say and do what needs to be said and done.

I do not share with you the idea that god would not allow a man to lead the church in an inappropriate direction — mistakes have happened, and at times very profound mistakes. The statement by Wilford Woodruff in reference to Declaration 1 that the Lord would never lead the church astray was in the context of the end of polygamy, supposedly ending in 1890 when he made that statement, yet the practice secretly continued until at least 1904 — my great-grandfather being one of those officially sanctioned by the leadership to continue getting new plural wives. As well, there were positions around blacks and the priesthood, women and the priesthood, etc., where the church’s position is perhaps less than what the Lord would want.

Good point, but I wonder are these mistakes all related to our salvation or are they institutional? I am really not in touch with the Church as an institution lately. I have also heard this statement more recently (isn’t it also in scripture in some form?) so I am trying to understand the real meaning and am trying to understand if it applies to the duty to lead saints to salvation and not the process of running an organization. I really mean it when I say I can’t see the forest for the trees. As a side note but relevant, a former bishop said during a discussion in GD class one day when we were talking about some specific event in church history “…even if he was wrong, he was right…” meaning “he” was a sustained leader and was to be followed.

wayfarer wrote:

Yet, to sustain, is to stand in support of them, and to uphold them. It is my firm belief that this means appropriate opposition to those things which are not in the best interests of the church. As I have had some leadership callings, I expect that those in my charge are willing to tell me when I am wrong, appropriately and discreetly, but nevertheless, firmly. Without the combined mind of all, the leader is less than effective. It should never be the case that I just dictate, and people will follow — that is someone else’s plan.

Yea but when I raise my hand to sustain local or general church leaders there is no place to say …”as long as I agree that the decisions are appropriate”. That may be my feeling or your belief but I don’t think that is the intention of the institution. I don’t mean to sound disagreeable on this point I just don’t fully understand. I mean, I think I understand that sustaining and supporting means submitting.

wayfarer wrote:

That said, where we land is to support Pres Monson as a prophet, and I do.

[Kipper]

turinturambar wrote:

I liked the post. The last paragraph was very moving to me. It articulates something I have been trying to figure out for months:

Quote:

We (LGBT people) do not suffer same-sex attraction or same-gender attraction. We suffer homophobia. We suffer ostracism. We suffer discrimination. We suffer hate-crimes. We suffer bullying. We suffer marginalization. We suffer family rejection….they are taught to hate themselves. They are often cut off from their families and homes. They do not feel welcome in their wards and communities. They aren’t allowed to become strong enough to survive.

That last paragraph was moving to me as well. But then he said “We have to endure these things even more in our Mormon communities because they are even stronger there.”

Wait, homophobia, hate-crimes, bullying stronger in Mormon communities (?) My Mormon community does not reflect that and has in fact successfully taught the opposite principals. And I live in a conservative county.

That was otherwise a very moving post.

[Kipper]

I used to alternate white shirt with colored then I became part of the YM presidency and will occasionally need to fill in to pass sacrament so I regularly wear a white shirt now to be ready. I don’t have any issue with white or those who wear colored shirts but I believe there is valid symbolism and respect in wearing white.

[Kipper]

I like that and I wish I could tell the differences. I might not feel so alone.

[Kipper]

Old-Timer wrote:

From a 13-year-old boy? I’m fine with it, since I know nothing about that boy.

From an adult? I hope not.

One part of me says the same…just a child feeling good about his faith. Then the other part of me asks is it OK to teach young people that your prayers were answered because you asked for dolphins? 13 years old is pretty close to someone who should have an understanding of meaningful prayer. Maybe it was the Lords way of confirming prayers are answered? Like stepping stones? I guess I am more like an investigator than an active adult with callings and am easily stunned.

[Kipper]

mackay11 wrote:

A few months back we had a kid bare his testimony of prayer because he had got a nerf gun for his birthday!

Maybe we should be getting these kids to pray for world peace. There must be something we adults are missing

By the way, I can’t resist smiling at kipper commenting on a sea-life story. Do they only call them kippers in UK:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Cl3RxGlF0CM/TjlP-_Dl_HI/AAAAAAAASdE/U1yWDmBLgYE/s1600/kipper.jpg

Oh great, hope only in the UK. Kipper is my middle name, didn’t know I was named after a fish. 😳

[Kipper]

Back in the late ’80s when I was trying to reactivate in the church, and thru the ’90s I would cringe whenever TSM would be a speaker at conference. I just did not like his style and methods for getting his points across. It was like he was trying to fool me or manipulate my emotions into believing and I wasn’t buying it. Fast forward ~20 years and now he is the current President and Prophet of the church. I struggle and still don’t enjoy his talks, he brings too much personal character to the pulpit, but I can sustain him as a prophet called to lead this church because I believe he was chosen by God to do so and no man could lead this church in an inappropriate way or direction, at least for our salvation. God would not let it happen. That’s what I believe.

[Author]

Posts