The June 1

[San Juan Sun]

I am sure you responded similarly when he called me a fuckwad, right?

Nope, I missed that one.

Link?

[Blueintheface]

Alright, everybody just cool it.

(How was that, JL? Can I be a moderator? )

[Pheidippides]

I kind of find it interesting in the context of all of this (IE the question "is this what Christ would do" as it relates to the church and priesthood for Blacks, etc.) that when Christ was on earth, he limited his preaching to the Jews. I know that ultimately he healed those who weren't, but isn't there a story of a Samaritan woman that he tells he is there to teach the Jews and her reply has something to do with food falling from the table for the dogs? It was later that revelation came to include sharing the Gospel with non-Jews. So...What WOULD Christ do?



I won't say I have more experience or knowledge about this than your average guy. But I did have an interesting conversation yesterday with a ward member who is also an ex bishop, ex-stake presidency member, and ex-mission president. He said that since this information has come out he has spoken with 4-5 different stake presidents and asked them about their experience with this. This included SP one who he didn't identify, but indicated was involved in a fairly high profile situation similar to the current one (someone very prominent making public statements inconsistent with church teachings).

He specifically asked each of them "does this really happen? Have you ever had someone from church headquarters call you and tell you to initiate disciplinary action? Did they tell you what they thought the outcome should be?"

All but one had never heard of this before. The one, who had experience with the prominent case indicated above, stated that he received a call from a member of the 12. The apostle simply told him that they wanted him to be aware that there was a prominent member of their stake who was teaching false doctrine. He explained to the SP what it was this person was teaching, and indicated to the stake president that they wanted him to be aware of it so that he could respond appropriately - which included clearing up the false doctrine for people this particular person had been teaching it to.

That said, he indicated that the apostle he talked to never told him what the appropriate response would be (aside from clearing up the incorrect doctrine).

I could see this happening in other areas. And it wouldn't surprise me for an overly enthusiastic leader to assume what someone thought was "appropriate" from the perspective of an apostle. But truth be told - I have personally found most of these guys to be more forgiving than we give them credit for. Particularly when we stop talking about consequences of sin in general terms and begin talking about individuals.

I agree that very well could be the case.

On the other hand, let's look at things with some different glasses. Recently I was in charge of doing an internal investigation on an employee. After I was done, it was clear to me he had grossly violated policy and needed to be fired. HR agreed with me. But he was somewhat senior in a division of ours.

You better damn well believe we phoned that into my boss, head of HR, and president of the division before we so much as moved a muscle.

Any SP who makes a move against a media - savvy public figure like Dehlin or Kelly is a complete idiot if he doesn't call his superior first. I allow that also be the case.

That said, I'm sitting here in City Creek having lunch, and it strikes me that 90 percent of the people around me don't know the first thing about, say, the September 6, nor do they care. The progmo/exmo crowd inhabits a space largely unknown to the average TBM. So maybe they wouldn't think of such a thing.

[Blueintheface]

I agree that very well could be the case.

On the other hand, let's look at things with some different glasses. Recently I was in charge of doing an internal investigation on an employee. After I was done, it was clear to me he had grossly violated policy and needed to be fired. HR agreed with me. But he was somewhat senior in a division of ours.

You better damn well believe we phoned that into my boss, head of HR, and president of the division before we so much as moved a muscle.

Any SP who makes a move against a media - savvy public figure like Dehlin or Kelly is a complete idiot if he doesn't call his superior first. I allow that also be the case.

That said, I'm sitting here in City Creek having lunch, and it strikes me that 90 percent of the people around me don't know the first thing about, say, the September 6, nor do they care. The progmo/exmo crowd inhabits a space largely unknown to the average TBM. So maybe they wouldn't think of such a thing.

You know all of the people currently at City Creek?

(Channeling my inner-HFN...or is it DH?)

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

You know all of the people currently at City Creek?

(Channeling my inner-HFN...or is it DH?)

Bro, I assume niku knows people everywhere. You aren't channeling me. I just hope he's avoiding magma.

[CardiacCoug]

I kind of find it interesting in the context of all of this (IE the question "is this what Christ would do" as it relates to the church and priesthood for Blacks, etc.) that when Christ was on earth, he limited his preaching to the Jews. I know that ultimately he healed those who weren't, but isn't there a story of a Samaritan woman that he tells he is there to teach the Jews and her reply has something to do with food falling from the table for the dogs? It was later that revelation came to include sharing the Gospel with non-Jews. So...What WOULD Christ do?

Right -- this is why the Otterson letter saying essentially "we don't know why Christ didn't ordain women but that's what we're stuck with" is ridiculous.

I'm pretty damn sure that Christ didn't ordain Asian people or Pacific Islanders, he sure as hell didn't send women out as missionaries, I mean you could go on and on with this and it's nonsense.

[Pheidippides]

Nope, I missed that one.

Link?

I think that was Donuthole I called a fuckwad. Which I will admit was done under the influence of a long day driving, so I take that one back. I may or may not have called imanihonjin a fuckwad too. I may or may not have called a lot of people a fuckwad, actually, up to and including San Juan Sun in the heat of COD battle. It's my go to insult, as it's much less offensive than the slur I find the funniest. So I will stipulate that and you can now refer to me as declasse if you prefer. I don't mind.

As to the other bit I have been personally asking all the people here in Kneaders whether or not they know about Paul Toscano. I'm going to freshen up on my street contacting and hit the mall at large as soon as I finish my coffee. Seems only fair.

(Also, I'm sorta underwhelmed by City Creek as a whole - maybe it would be more impressive if I remembered what it was like before. SLC, as usual, is a nice city though.)

[All-American]

I kind of find it interesting in the context of all of this (IE the question "is this what Christ would do" as it relates to the church and priesthood for Blacks, etc.) that when Christ was on earth, he limited his preaching to the Jews. I know that ultimately he healed those who weren't, but isn't there a story of a Samaritan woman that he tells he is there to teach the Jews and her reply has something to do with food falling from the table for the dogs? It was later that revelation came to include sharing the Gospel with non-Jews. So...What WOULD Christ do?



I won't say I have more experience or knowledge about this than your average guy. But I did have an interesting conversation yesterday with a ward member who is also an ex bishop, ex-stake presidency member, and ex-mission president. He said that since this information has come out he has spoken with 4-5 different stake presidents and asked them about their experience with this. This included SP one who he didn't identify, but indicated was involved in a fairly high profile situation similar to the current one (someone very prominent making public statements inconsistent with church teachings).

He specifically asked each of them "does this really happen? Have you ever had someone from church headquarters call you and tell you to initiate disciplinary action? Did they tell you what they thought the outcome should be?"

All but one had never heard of this before. The one, who had experience with the prominent case indicated above, stated that he received a call from a member of the 12. The apostle simply told him that they wanted him to be aware that there was a prominent member of their stake who was teaching false doctrine. He explained to the SP what it was this person was teaching, and indicated to the stake president that they wanted him to be aware of it so that he could respond appropriately - which included clearing up the false doctrine for people this particular person had been teaching it to.

That said, he indicated that the apostle he talked to never told him what the appropriate response would be (aside from clearing up the incorrect doctrine).

I could see this happening in other areas. And it wouldn't surprise me for an overly enthusiastic leader to assume what someone thought was "appropriate" from the perspective of an apostle. But truth be told - I have personally found most of these guys to be more forgiving than we give them credit for. Particularly when we stop talking about consequences of sin in general terms and begin talking about individuals.

Not being a party to these conversations, I wonder whether a stake president might not feel at liberty to decide against initiating disciplinary proceedings when an Apostle of The Lord Jesus Christ calls him and suggests that maybe he might want to think about considering it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

He mentioned the Holy of Molies. I thought this was frowned upon.

Never been a secret. There is a link to the list of members on the main page of this site.

[Northwestcoug]

From the little I have read on this particular case, what you have read confuses me. I thought she received a letter informing her of the disciplinary council after she had moved to Utah? What meeting with her stake president are you referring to where discipline was discussed because again what I have read she was completely blindsided by the letter she received in Utah? What am I missing?

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1103030

IIRC, this was before she moved to Utah.

[Blueintheface]

Never been a secret. There is a link to the list of members on the main page of this site.

Ah, so when CJ was calling me out for mentioning it last month, he was mistaken.

[Eddie]

I agree that very well could be the case.

On the other hand, let's look at things with some different glasses. Recently I was in charge of doing an internal investigation on an employee. After I was done, it was clear to me he had grossly violated policy and needed to be fired. HR agreed with me. But he was somewhat senior in a division of ours.

You better damn well believe we phoned that into my boss, head of HR, and president of the division before we so much as moved a muscle.

Any SP who makes a move against a media - savvy public figure like Dehlin or Kelly is a complete idiot if he doesn't call his superior first. I allow that also be the case.

That said, I'm sitting here in City Creek having lunch, and it strikes me that 90 percent of the people around me don't know the first thing about, say, the September 6, nor do they care. The progmo/exmo crowd inhabits a space largely unknown to the average TBM. So maybe they wouldn't think of such a thing.

I agree - and in a similar situation I would do the same. I'm not sure how much contact stake presidents have with members of the 12, but whoever my go-to priesthood leader is (area presidency? seventy?) I would certainly call them and have a conversation.

Right -- this is why the Otterson letter saying essentially "we don't know why Christ didn't ordain women but that's what we're stuck with" is ridiculous.

I'm pretty damn sure that Christ didn't ordain Asian people or Pacific Islanders, he sure as hell didn't send women out as missionaries, I mean you could go on and on with this and it's nonsense.

I'm not sure if I misunderstand - but I'm not talking about just trying to interpret Christ's motives. I'm saying he actually told the apostles NOT to teach the non-Jews. I think even you would have to agree that a specific direction like that is different than trying to infer based on what you can read about. Here are a couple of examples:

Matthew 10:5-6:

5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

or

Matthew 15:22-28

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Seems to me that Jesus is making it pretty clear that he is ONLY going to be preaching to the Jews and lost house of Israel. Later he tells the 12 to go to all nations - but at this point...

Not being a party to these conversations, I wonder whether a stake president might not feel at liberty to decide against initiating disciplinary proceedings when an Apostle of The Lord Jesus Christ calls him and suggests that maybe he might want to think about considering it.

I understand what you're saying and agree. Except according to the person I spoke with (and I understand this is third person) the Apostle didn't necessarily tell them to initiate discipline. They did tell the SP that he needed to correct false doctrine that was being taught, including let the folks know who had been taught the stuff as well as discussing with the guy doing the teaching. But from what I understand the SP was never told that the Apostle thought he should initiate a disciplinary council - he was told that they wanted him to know what was happening so that he could respond.

To all those who are thinking it:

Yes - I understand that in instances with high profile individuals it would be surprising for an SP to NOT consult with someone further up the chain.

I also acknowledge that just the act of making that call could lead to someone implying that the 12 or other leadership wanted something specific to happen. I would think if they didn't want that to happen, they would need to be very careful in how they describe things.

Ultimately I'm just saying that there are a limited number of folks who know what really happened. And I could see things occurring from a variety of perspectives. So my primary purpose in offering any information or opinion is simply to provide an opposing view. Yep - it could've happened just as you think. Or it could've happened in another way. I just don't think it is as cut and dried "this is exactly what happened" as some seem to indicate.

[YOhio]

Ah, so when CJ was calling me out for mentioning it last month, he was mistaken.

Just more evidence of a double standard on this board.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I agree that very well could be the case.

On the other hand, let's look at things with some different glasses. Recently I was in charge of doing an internal investigation on an employee. After I was done, it was clear to me he had grossly violated policy and needed to be fired. HR agreed with me. But he was somewhat senior in a division of ours.

You better damn well believe we phoned that into my boss, head of HR, and president of the division before we so much as moved a muscle.

Any SP who makes a move against a media - savvy public figure like Dehlin or Kelly is a complete idiot if he doesn't call his superior first. I allow that also be the case.

That said, I'm sitting here in City Creek having lunch, and it strikes me that 90 percent of the people around me don't know the first thing about, say, the September 6, nor do they care. The progmo/exmo crowd inhabits a space largely unknown to the average TBM. So maybe they wouldn't think of such a thing.

90%? You have it backwards.

In my Provo "heart-of-mormonism" ward, the OW movement has been mentioned numerous times in priesthood, RS, and SS discussions. Furthermore, it (both the OW activities over the last year and the recent Kate Kelly news) has been all over the front page of the newspapers, on the radio, on TV broadcasts, and in social media here in Utah. Our ward RS Pres references it frequently. Anyone who claims that this is something that only a tiny handful of Mormons are even aware of is simply wrong.

I too have been surprised at the reaction over the last few days. I know several people in my ward (not a majority by any stretch, but a significant number) who are quite upset. One woman told me she might be done. A lot of these folks may not fully support OW or agree with their tactics thus far, but are sympathetic to the concept of gender inequality in the church and are shocked by the threat of excommunication.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Seems to me that Jesus is making it pretty clear that he is ONLY going to be preaching to the Jews and lost house of Israel. Later he tells the 12 to go to all nations - but at this point...

Seems to me like the woman questioned established religious dogma at the time and Jesus rewarded her for it.