DiscussMormonism.com

Tim the Enchanter wrote:Will Uchtdorf get demoted? Time will tell.

Now that would cause mass apostasy. Among the women anyway.

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast wrote:Now that would cause mass apostasy. Among the women anyway.

Regards,
MG

No, it wouldn't. What are they going to do? Break their covenants and put their salvation on the line over a reorganization of the First Presidency that doesn't include the man with the silky German accent? If it did happen, very few active members would leave over it.

Jesse Pinkman wrote:
You bring up some good points. However, take a look at how influential President Hinckley was as a counselor for both Kimball and Benson. President Hinckley was less liberal than Uchtdort, but, he did pave the way for some of Uchtdorf's thinking. He was the one who started streamlining the Church toward Christianity, and wanted the LDS Church to have a voice in the traditional Christian community. That had never been done before.

He also called Bednar to the 12 knowing full well he was calling a future president of the church (barring any surprises). He also was the de facto leader of the church when the September 6 were ex'd. He also was primarily responsible for the enormous focus on temples over the past 15-20 years. He also strongly stressed loyalty to the church and declared there is no middle ground with respect to the church. At the very best, Hinckley was a mixed bag.

The call of Bednar is the biggest thing to me. He knew exactly the long term influence this decision would have on the church. Bednar's influnece will be measured in decades if not the better part of a century when all is said and done. Based on Bednar's apostleship thus far, it does not look at all like Bendar will influence the church towards becoming a traditional Christian community.

Tim the Enchanter wrote:

Jesse Pinkman wrote:
You bring up some good points. However, take a look at how influential President Hinckley was as a counselor for both Kimball and Benson. President Hinckley was less liberal than Uchtdort, but, he did pave the way for some of Uchtdorf's thinking. He was the one who started streamlining the Church toward Christianity, and wanted the LDS Church to have a voice in the traditional Christian community. That had never been done before.

He also called Bednar to the 12 knowing full well he was calling a future president of the church (barring any surprises). He also was the de facto leader of the church when the September 6 were ex'd. He also was primarily responsible for the enormous focus on temples over the past 15-20 years. He also strongly stressed loyalty to the church and declared there is no middle ground with respect to the church. At the very best, Hinckley was a mixed bag.

The call of Bednar is the biggest thing to me. He knew exactly the long term influence this decision would have on the church. Bednar's influnece will be measured in decades if not the better part of a century when all is said and done. Based on Bednar's apostleship thus far, it does not look at all like Bendar will influence the church towards becoming a traditional Christian community.

Whenever Bednar is mentioned I cannot help but picture him gripping that young boy until he made him cry, simply to make a point about Satan. Creepiest thing I've ever seen a leader do.

Bazooka wrote:
Whenever Bednar is mentioned I cannot help but picture him gripping that young boy until he made him cry, simply to make a point about Satan. Creepiest thing I've ever seen a leader do.

Yeah, and this is the man Hinckley hand-picked be the president of the church one day.

Tim the Enchanter wrote:

Bazooka wrote:
Whenever Bednar is mentioned I cannot help but picture him gripping that young boy until he made him cry, simply to make a point about Satan. Creepiest thing I've ever seen a leader do.

Yeah, and this is the man Hinckley hand-picked be the president of the church one day.

I have no argument for that. I guess based on how Hinckley did attempt to have the Church gain strides in the traditional Christian community, I do label him as a mixed bag.

I also can't help but think of Bednar as President Packer's (the Emperor) Darth Vader.

One piece of doctrine that I believe you brought up, Bazooka, is something that I remember having difficulty with as a kid. I believe it was you who mentioned that those who were not introduced to the gospel in this life would have the opportunity in the next, thus making it much easier for them to enter the Celestial Kingdom.

I always felt that I was "jipped" in receiving the gospel here. My friends all got to drink coffee, etc., and not be held accountable for it because they didn't know any better. And they would still have the option to go to the Celestial Kingdom. Since I was a baptized member, I knew the cost, and was held to a stiffer penalty. I felt like it was unfair that I was more at risk of losing my family in the next life than those who didn't know about the gospel to begin with.

This is the kind of circular logic that the Church presents that I take issue with.

Tim the Enchanter wrote:

Jesse Pinkman wrote:
Scott is ahead of Holland in the line-up. Just sayin'

If Scott sneaks in after Oaks, it won't be for long based upon the ages involved. This is also why I said "primarily" led by Oaks, Holland, and Bednar. "Primarily" was intended to mean that a few others might sneak in for a short time.

The bottom line is that nothing much will change at the ward level until well after MG has raised his kids and they are well into adulthood. What matters most regarding positive change in the church is the here and now, while you are raising your kids. I see18 year old boys going out just as ignorant and indoctrinated as they did when I went out in 1990. The same mentality you get with the missionaries online at Mormon.org or whatever is the same mentality I went out with. It's scary because it takes a hell of a lot more than some blogs and books and podcasts by progressive Mormons to make even a small dent at the ward level.

Tim the Enchanter wrote:

Jesse Pinkman wrote:
You bring up some good points. However, take a look at how influential President Hinckley was as a counselor for both Kimball and Benson. President Hinckley was less liberal than Uchtdort, but, he did pave the way for some of Uchtdorf's thinking. He was the one who started streamlining the Church toward Christianity, and wanted the LDS Church to have a voice in the traditional Christian community. That had never been done before.

He also called Bednar to the 12 knowing full well he was calling a future president of the church (barring any surprises). He also was the de facto leader of the church when the September 6 were ex'd. He also was primarily responsible for the enormous focus on temples over the past 15-20 years. He also strongly stressed loyalty to the church and declared there is no middle ground with respect to the church. At the very best, Hinckley was a mixed bag.

The call of Bednar is the biggest thing to me. He knew exactly the long term influence this decision would have on the church. Bednar's influnece will be measured in decades if not the better part of a century when all is said and done. Based on Bednar's apostleship thus far, it does not look at all like Bendar will influence the church towards becoming a traditional Christian community.

Don't forget that he was one sneaky bastard during the ERA rallies etc. Hinckley did the sneaky "I don't know that we teach that". He also was behind those sneaky document purchases with Hoffman so docs would not see the light of day. Hinckley is largely responsible for what the church is today. Guys like Hinckley and Monson are not progressives at all. The church is exactly how they have helped shape it. I mean, that is the whole problem. These guys (the top 15) actually like it the way it is and don't want it to change. If you are spending your life in the church, waiting for it to change, well, good luck with that.

Jesse Pinkman wrote:One piece of doctrine that I believe you brought up, Bazooka, is something that I remember having difficulty with as a kid. I believe it was you who mentioned that those who were not introduced to the gospel in this life would have the opportunity in the next, thus making it much easier for them to enter the Celestial Kingdom.

I always felt that I was "jipped" in receiving the gospel here. My friends all got to drink coffee, etc., and not be held accountable for it because they didn't know any better. And they would still have the option to go to the Celestial Kingdom. Since I was a baptized member, I knew the cost, and was held to a stiffer penalty. I felt like it was unfair that I was more at risk of losing my family in the next life than those who didn't know about the gospel to begin with.

This is the kind of circular logic that the Church presents that I take issue with.

But it's not logic, it's doctrine.
The majority of members who either join the Church or were born into it, will fail in some way or other the live up to the onerous requirements required for Celestial Glory (unless you accept that having a temple marriage is the equivalent of an all areas pass that cannot be taken away from you regardless of your unworthiness, as per D&C 132). So most members and those who were given the opportunity to hear the gospel but rejected that chance in this life, can only gain the Terrestrial Glory. If you live your life blissfully unaware of the Gospel you get the chance to hear about in the next life, where you have a much better chance of believing it because, well, you're already in the next life! The missionary programme is actually making it much harder for humanity to deliver Gods Plan of Happiness.

It is this very doctrine that is responsible for some fruity Mormons murdering their kids before aged 8 in the hopes of guaranteeing them Celestial Glory at the expense of their own. In many respects, (if what the doctrine says is actually how it works) what parent wouldn't willing sacrifice their place in the Celestial Kingdom if it guaranteed their offspring got in?