bcspace wrote:I particularly enjoyed the press conference where several antiMormon style questions were asked. Monson handled them beautifully. In particular, there is no room for disagreement with the Church on doctrine ....
What? There is no room for disagreement with the church on docftrine???? What was he thinking?
So, what's the deal with Packer and Oaks getting passed over? Where in the hierarchy does Oaks stand exactly, if anyone knows?
Luceretia, I have occasionally been accused of being condescending when I reply to a poster who appears not to understand the workings of the Church.
Your post leads me to believe you are not now, and how never been a member of the Church. Is that correct?
There is not disagreement on doctrine. And there is no such thing as getting "passed over." We serve in any capacity where we are called. It may seem to the outside world that there is some kind of glory thing going on with being bisihop, stake president, regional rep, General Authority, etc. And that there is some kind of social position among the apostles. Not true.
I know many men that I consider as wise, spiritual, "holy" in the sense of personal worthiness, as the apostles and the prophet. There can only be one prophet and head of the Church on the earth at one time, but that doesn't mean there aren't many great people. So, no, there is no wordly social position thing in the Church.
Charity, I am not now a member but was for many years. And no, I don't now and never did understand everything there was to know about how the church operates. Furthermore, I am now much less likely to put a gloss on every situation as is your [apparently] only recourse.
So now I take it that the "no disagreement on doctrine" statement was pertaining strictly to the choosing of the new presidency? If that's the case, then I understand it better.
bcspace wrote:Funny. The way you guys talk makes me think that you're thinking one can get away with more or less depending on who the prophet is.
Ha! Do you imagine that I'm patiently waiting for the day when a prophet gives me permission to wear a second pair of earrings or something?
And now you're back, do you believe there is no disagreement on doctrine?
Edit: I meant to add, disagreement between what entities? I took your first post to mean between the church and the rest of the world. Now it seems to mean within the church only, or within the first prsidency, maybe. What in the heck was your first post talking about? Mabe you could post the interview or something?
charity wrote:Luceretia, I have occasionally been accused of being condescending when I reply to a poster who appears not to understand the workings of the Church.
If you're referring to me, I understand the "workings of the Church" just fine, thank you.
I said APPEARS not to understand. Occasionally, a poster, even you, makes a comment that APPEARS to indicate a lack of understanding of some point. Then when I give an instructional response, I am accused of being condescending.
So this time I asked. And you still took offense. Shsssssssh.
Lucretia MacEvil wrote:Charity, I am not now a member but was for many years. And no, I don't now and never did understand everything there was to know about how the church operates. Furthermore, I am now much less likely to put a gloss on every situation as is your [apparently] only recourse.
What is there to put a gloss on here? President Packer stated very plainly at the funeral service for President Hinckley that the Lord's way has always been to chose the senior aposte (in terms of service, not in age) as the prophet. The history of the calls of men to the first presidency has indicated that neither seniority in service nor age is a factor in selecting the two members of the first presidency.
This is exaclty what happened. So where is the need to provide gloss?
Lucretia MacEvil wrote:So now I take it that the "no disagreement on doctrine" statement was pertaining strictly to the choosing of the new presidency? If that's the case, then I understand it better.
It doesn't have to have been. There is no disagreement on doctrine. I know critics and anti's try to stir the pot, and get very frustrated when their efforts are in vain.
Lucretia MacEvil wrote: Doesn't this thing about there being no room for disagreement with the church on doctrine seem strange to anyone else? I don't know the context, but it sounds amazingly arrogant and not something that an unfriendlly press would just accept as fact (if that were the case, as bcspace seems to imply, but again the context is missing).
Actually, it sounds like the thing to say. The reality though is that it sets the stage for some real conflict, since we all know each member (including the leaders) have their own take on what is doctrine, and what is not. So when pressed, I see some real inner-circle battles ready to brew....
Okay, I'll bite. Please be specific here. Who do you think disagrees with who about what?
Funny. The way you guys talk makes me think that you're thinking one can get away with more or less depending on who the prophet is.
Ha! Do you imagine that I'm patiently waiting for the day when a prophet gives me permission to wear a second pair of earrings or something?
Actually, yes I do. You want justification for your misdeeds.
And now you're back, do you believe there is no disagreement on doctrine?
Edit: I meant to add, disagreement between what entities? I took your first post to mean between the church and the rest of the world. Now it seems to mean within the church only, or within the first prsidency, maybe. What in the heck was your first post talking about? Mabe you could post the interview or something?
The context was could members remain in good standing and not believe the doctrine. The literal answer was "It depends." The contextual answer was no; the case being apostasy. Therefore, if one is trying to believe or wants to believe, there is no problem. But if one does not believe and/or teaches others not to believe, then one is in a state of apostasy.
Lucretia MacEvil wrote: Doesn't this thing about there being no room for disagreement with the church on doctrine seem strange to anyone else? I don't know the context, but it sounds amazingly arrogant and not something that an unfriendlly press would just accept as fact (if that were the case, as bcspace seems to imply, but again the context is missing).
Actually, it sounds like the thing to say. The reality though is that it sets the stage for some real conflict, since we all know each member (including the leaders) have their own take on what is doctrine, and what is not. So when pressed, I see some real inner-circle battles ready to brew....
Okay, I'll bite. Please be specific here. Who do you think disagrees with who about what?
A few things come to mind immediately. First, I think there is a great divide between the principle church scholars and the church leadership regarding Book of Mormon issues -- primarily LGT vs. HGT. Like the battle that took place in the 60s/70s with regard to McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine," there is bound to be many closed door sessions regarding this. I'm certain most chapel Mormons don't even know about the LGT, so this trickles up to the administrative leadership in the church. I see most leaders as being administrators, not scholars, and I've been involved in a few meetings where there was this conflict.
So, the stage is set for the "no disagreement" claim to play itself out, since there is bound to be many "disagreements," even amongst the twelve (or 15).
Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit.
[Certainty (that one is correct) is often the most dangerous enemy of the
truth.] - Friedrich Nietzsche
charity wrote:Luceretia, I have occasionally been accused of being condescending when I reply to a poster who appears not to understand the workings of the Church.
If you're referring to me, I understand the "workings of the Church" just fine, thank you.
I said APPEARS not to understand. Occasionally, a poster, even you, makes a comment that APPEARS to indicate a lack of understanding of some point. Then when I give an instructional response, I am accused of being condescending.
So this time I asked. And you still took offense. Shsssssssh.
Sure, well how would you like it if we did that with you?
I hope some of these women around here start telling you what it's like to have children, since you APPEAR never to have given birth or raised any.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
charity wrote:Okay, I'll bite. Please be specific here. Who do you think disagrees with who about what?
A few things come to mind immediately. First, I think there is a great divide between the principle church scholars and the church leadership regarding Book of Mormon issues -- primarily LGT vs. HGT. Like the battle that took place in the 60s/70s with regard to McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine," there is bound to be many closed door sessions regarding this. I'm certain most chapel Mormons don't even know about the LGT, so this trickles up to the administrative leadership in the church. I see most leaders as being administrators, not scholars, and I've been involved in a few meetings where there was this conflict.
So, the stage is set for the "no disagreement" claim to play itself out, since there is bound to be many "disagreements," even amongst the twelve (or 15).
Book of Mormon geography is not doctrine. And if you were in adminstirative meetings where this took up a lot of time, then whoever was conducting was not sticking to the agenda.
Oh, if you can show me where Book of Mormon geography impacts any area of the 3 fold mission of the Church, I would like to see that argument.
Was that the sum total of your "disagreements on doctrine" arsenal?