Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
Also, fwiw, sometimes I was the lead voice of a different perspective when I served on the HC. The last time I was released (due to moving to another state), the Stake Presidency was reorganized a couple of months later – and two of the new presidency were members of the HC who had thanked me personally for expressing a different perspective. One told me that my willingness to do so had empowered him to express his own unorthodox views – and that he would try to represent the silent members of the stake as he served in the SP. That simple statement hit me HARD.
For what its worth, my father was released from the High Council because he was not a “yes man” to all the SP’s edicts. When they had the discussions, my father would give the contraire POV. In the end he always supported the SP, but not before he made his views known.
Old-Timer wrote:4) He was the calming influence on Joseph’s mercurial nature. (“Mercurial” was the word that the man used who said this.)
I like being in a ward where multiple people have studied our history quite deeply.
And being in a ward where somebody not only knows what the word “Mercurial” means, but knows how to use it in a sentence!
I’ve told this story before. There was a Bishop in our Stake many years ago that was so full of himself, that the members stated to leave in droves, and the SP had to remove him after just two years. The members got to vote with their feet, and it worked! Once in a while there is accountability to the members. Years ago in my stake there was a bishop so obnoxious that the members revolted (this would have been in the 1970’s). They voted with their feet and stopping attending. The SP had no recourse but to release him at the 3 year mark. To save face, they made a big deal about calling him to a stake calling, but everybody knew the real reason. The lesson here is that if enough people vote with their feet and not just their arm, things will happen.
(BTW, this guys is still in my ward, and still offends somebody almost every time he opens his mouth)
telemoonka wrote:Kirby sure is a funny writer. He probably stays LDS the way that I stay LDS: keeping his mouth shut in Church and frequently skipping Sunday School. I wonder if Kirby’s ever been threatened a disciplinary council. Kirby’s a brave guy. I mean, it takes guts to attach your real name to hundreds of articles that are published in the Salt Lake Tribune that are skeptical of the Church. (I assume Robert Kirby is his real name.)
Yes, Robert Kirby is his real name. I have met him and his wife, and he is the same in person and he is in writing. Very honest, guy. There is no pretext to him.
This has been around since I served a mission in the late 70’s. We were told to focus on complete families with fathers, and single men. And we were giving the same reasons that are being used today. I think you’ll get some gun ho 70 that may express it more obnoxiously from time to time, but it’s nothing new and has been around at least 40 years. If we look at the sexuality spectrum from 1 to 10, 1 being completely hetro, and 10 being completely homo, then we are going to find people at all numbers of the scale. I have a gay coworker that is a 9-10 range. In a conversation once, he asked if I could have sex with a guy if I closed my eyes, and forced myself to. I told him no, I couldn’t, it would just not work for me. He told me that it is the same for him with women, even with his eyes closed and all the imagination in the world, he could not do it with a woman.
So when you know a person that is living in a hetro relationship, but claims to have SSA, I would say they are on the middle of the spectrum, 4-6, and are not in the 9-10 type.
My former SP, who is now an MP and on his way to GA-hood, is probably indicative of most of the lower level GA’s. Once during a PPI with him, I asked him if he had read Rough Stone Rolling. He said he started to read it, but then stopped because he did not want to know those things about JS. He didn’t doubt the veracity of the book, he just didn’t want to know about it. You sit him down in private and tell him everything about the temple except the few things you promised not to reveal. Walk him through from the beginning, step by step. When you get to the part that you cannot reveal, just quote from Brigham Young and say you’ll then receive “key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood” (Journal of Discourses, v. 2, p. 31), and that you can’t talk the particulars about those “signs and tokens” outside the temple. Kirby in the SLTrib had this to say about the 2nd coming in is article about becoming a good.
Quote:There is also the New Testament God who promised to return “soon” but hasn’t yet, sparking a 2,000 year-old debate that so far has produced nothing but long winded church
Curtis wrote:the difference between her experience and that of many others was the fact that we took the time to explain in great detail exactly what she would experience in the endowment (which she did the week before the sealing) and the sealing itself.
This is the key. I did the same for all my children. My wife and I sat them down, and explained everything in the temple, exactly as it would happen. The only thing I did not tell them was the couple of items I explicitly promised not to divulge (signs, tokens). But I told them they would be receiving them, and how they would do it. We talked about the movie, and how it was symbolic of the creation. We showed them all of the temple clothes. There was no surprises for them. We had a real “Temple Prep Class”
Yes, I know. All I have is the second hand information from the member. I’ve asked him for more information. Though I’m afraid all the documentation will be in Dutch. We’ll need somebody to translate it for us.
