The Next Mormon Schism

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Sleeping in EQ
    Philosopher of Men
    • Nov 2008
    • 4188

    #31
    Originally posted by Viking View Post
    There's a decent chance that you could see a serious hardline approach with a binary outcome: you're onboard or you're out.
    This GC may have been the roll out, although there are reasons to think otherwise:

    Scores of Mormons felt confused and bruised this weekend by LDS apostle Boyd K. Packer's unequi
    Last edited by Sleeping in EQ; 10-05-2010, 09:06 AM.
    We all trust our own unorthodoxies.

    Comment

    • Indy Coug
      Heartless Bastard
      • Dec 2008
      • 18747

      #32
      Originally posted by Sleeping in EQ View Post
      I'm not blaming BYU football and I always take responsibility for my faith. I'm just lamenting the lack of joy on Friday night, followed by the disaster that was GC.
      General Conference was a disaster? A disaster?

      Is the object going into General Conference to have your rabbit ears up searching for as much as possible to get bent out of shape about?

      Don't bother answering that question. This forum is answer enough.
      Everything in life is an approximation.

      http://twitter.com/CougarStats

      Comment

      • Moliere
        One man.....one pie
        • Oct 2009
        • 27820

        #33
        Originally posted by Indy Coug View Post
        General Conference was a disaster? A disaster?
        Maybe it's the morsel of poop in the brownies metaphor. You hear one talk that rubs you wrong and it spoils all 5 sessions.
        "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

        Comment

        • pellegrino
          miserere me
          • Jan 2009
          • 12100

          #34
          Originally posted by Indy Coug View Post
          General Conference was a disaster? A disaster?

          Is the object going into General Conference to have your rabbit ears up searching for as much as possible to get bent out of shape about?

          Don't bother answering that question. This forum is answer enough.
          I didn't watch much of conference, we took the opportunity to get out of town and see a football game with some friends. I did catch a good portion of Sunday morning session, but I missed Packer's talk. After having seen snippets online, I don't think I'll read it, not worth the effort.

          Indy, I think you're completely misunderstanding people here. Here's the best analogy I can think of at the moment. Let's say that membership in the church is like climbing a tree. Sometimes you're able to find a good path on a strong branch where you're able to get your feet under you and balance well enough to move on and explore other areas of the tree. Other times, you're just hanging on, hoping that you can find a more secure hand hold and then someone comes along and instead of offering you a hand they take a club and beat your hands with it, which, because of the pain, causes you to either let go completely, hoping that you'll find that solid branch beneath you, or that the fall doesn't hurt badly enough to prevent you from climbing the tree again.

          I'll ask you a question that begins with a couple of postulations. If, on a broad scale, the purpose of the church is to bring people to Christ, and if the purpose of GC is the same, then how, if at all, does a talk condemning homosexuality (and in turn those who vote to legalize same sex marriage) further that purpose? Why beat the hands of those who are just trying to hang on?
          Dio perdona tante cose per un’opera di misericordia
          God forgives many things for an act of mercy
          Alessandro Manzoni

          Knock it off. This board has enough problems without a dose of middle-age lechery.

          pelagius

          Comment

          • Sleeping in EQ
            Philosopher of Men
            • Nov 2008
            • 4188

            #35
            Originally posted by Indy Coug View Post
            General Conference was a disaster? A disaster?

            Is the object going into General Conference to have your rabbit ears up searching for as much as possible to get bent out of shape about?

            Don't bother answering that question. This forum is answer enough.
            The answer to your question is "no."

            Thank you for your kind consideration.
            We all trust our own unorthodoxies.

            Comment

            • Indy Coug
              Heartless Bastard
              • Dec 2008
              • 18747

              #36
              Originally posted by pellegrino View Post
              If, on a broad scale, the purpose of the church is to bring people to Christ, and if the purpose of GC is the same, then how, if at all, does a talk condemning homosexuality (and in turn those who vote to legalize same sex marriage) further that purpose?
              Part of bringing people to Christ entails clearly delineating what is and isn't acceptable behavior.
              Everything in life is an approximation.

              http://twitter.com/CougarStats

              Comment

              • byu71
                Senior Member
                • Nov 2008
                • 22070

                #37
                Originally posted by Indy Coug View Post
                Part of bringing people to Christ entails clearly delineating what is and isn't acceptable behavior.
                I agree with this. There are ways of doing this that seem Christlike and there are ways of doing this that remind me of the Witchhunts (a little over the top but I couldn't think of another comparison without taking too much time).

                I have made it quite clear on this board I am not for gay marriage. That being said, I found Elder Pakards talk taking me back into another time. A time when we had reasons why blacks couldn't hold the priesthood (fence sitters), a time when we loved the Lamanites (so much so we told them if they were good enough some day they could be white), a time when we told the Catholics they belonged to the great and abomnible (sp) church and a time when we told those who used birth control they would reap the wrath of God.

                While most of the brethern have moved on, I don't think Elder Packard has.

                Comment

                • pellegrino
                  miserere me
                  • Jan 2009
                  • 12100

                  #38
                  Originally posted by Indy Coug View Post
                  Part of bringing people to Christ entails clearly delineating what is and isn't acceptable behavior.
                  Agreed, so what did Christ have to say about homosexuality? Feel free to cite your scriptural references in the standard form (i.e. chapter and verse).
                  Dio perdona tante cose per un’opera di misericordia
                  God forgives many things for an act of mercy
                  Alessandro Manzoni

                  Knock it off. This board has enough problems without a dose of middle-age lechery.

                  pelagius

                  Comment

                  • Indy Coug
                    Heartless Bastard
                    • Dec 2008
                    • 18747

                    #39
                    Originally posted by pellegrino View Post
                    Agreed, so what did Christ have to say about homosexuality? Feel free to cite your scriptural references in the standard form (i.e. chapter and verse).
                    So you intend to completely dismiss modern revelation? Shocker.
                    Everything in life is an approximation.

                    http://twitter.com/CougarStats

                    Comment

                    • Flystripper
                      Degenerate Gambler
                      • Nov 2008
                      • 14089

                      #40
                      Originally posted by Indy Coug View Post
                      So you intend to completely dismiss modern revelation? Shocker.
                      The Proclamation was modern revelation?
                      Dyslexics are teople poo...

                      Comment

                      • Indy Coug
                        Heartless Bastard
                        • Dec 2008
                        • 18747

                        #41
                        Originally posted by Flystripper View Post
                        The Proclamation was modern revelation?
                        Hardly. Undoubtedly, it was the end result of intensive market research and focus groups.
                        Everything in life is an approximation.

                        http://twitter.com/CougarStats

                        Comment

                        • Flystripper
                          Degenerate Gambler
                          • Nov 2008
                          • 14089

                          #42
                          Originally posted by Indy Coug View Post
                          Hardly. Undoubtedly, it was the end result of intensive market research and focus groups.
                          Ha!

                          But seriously, when The Proclamation came out I never thought of it as something new or something revealed. It didn't seem like revelation to me. Sure it came from the First Presidency and they "solemnly declared" but was it modern revelation? It didn't seem that way to me at the time (this was a time when I was active) but what do I know? I am a hopeless apostate.
                          Dyslexics are teople poo...

                          Comment

                          • statman
                            Rabblerouser
                            • Aug 2009
                            • 2799

                            #43
                            Originally posted by UtahDan View Post
                            I thought the addiction talk was very positive. It also doesn't hurt to remind yourself that it is your church too.
                            My wife the pharmacist was very glad to hear Elder Ballard's addiction talk (recorded - since she was working on Saturday and Sunday!). She sees all kinds of addiction problems here in Utah to a degree that's not even been approximated in other places she's worked. WAY MORE people taking WAY MORE painkillers in northern Utah County.

                            Comment

                            • Sleeping in EQ
                              Philosopher of Men
                              • Nov 2008
                              • 4188

                              #44
                              Originally posted by Indy Coug View Post
                              Hardly. Undoubtedly, it was the end result of intensive market research and focus groups.
                              So the process was the same as for the mall? Got it.
                              We all trust our own unorthodoxies.

                              Comment

                              • Indy Coug
                                Heartless Bastard
                                • Dec 2008
                                • 18747

                                #45
                                Originally posted by Sleeping in EQ View Post
                                So the process was the same as for the mall? Got it.
                                The common thread is that they didn't pray over any of these decisions and wait for that pesky spiritual confirmation.
                                Everything in life is an approximation.

                                http://twitter.com/CougarStats

                                Comment

                                Working...