October 2019 General Conference

[falafel]

Work out your salvation and use your own wits to interpret our rules, unless we interpret them for you. Then, you must follow our interpretation.

Or you can do what I do, just tell them the answer they want to hear.

Sheesh, twice in one day, across two different platforms, that I agree with GM!

[swampfrog]

The questions that I answer the expected responses to are often not the questions the interviewer thinks they asked. So far I've never asked them to clarify the questions, and they haven't asked me to clarify my answers. I don't see anything in the new verbiage that will change that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think people tend to overthink this issue when it just takes a little common sense. There is a difference between disagreeing and being disloyal. There is no problem with disagreeing with the church as long as that disagreement is done in a spirit of love and unity. Openly fighting against the church in a way that diminishes faith and leads people away is being disloyal. Stay within those parameters and don't bother your local leaders with your anxiety - plan your yes/no answers before the interview. And if you feel like you need to discuss it, share your disagreements in a spirit of love and humility and you will not have a problem 99.9% of the time.

[smokymountainrain]

Huh?

lol

[Green Monstah]

That’s a very cynical take.

Yeah, it probably is. But doesn't anyone else struggle with the "teach them the principles and let them govern themselves" approach and the presence of two handbooks written by Kirton McConkie attorneys?*

In practice, I've found almost all church leaders to be kind, practical people. But I do view this revision in particular as a way to separate/punish/marginalize those that don't fall in line. Maybe it's just my cynicism, but I'm struggling to see a plausible alternative.

*This is a joke. But I suspect it's true, at least in part.

[Green Monstah]

Sheesh, twice in one day, across two different platforms, that I agree with GM!

What other platform??

[All-American]

Yeah, it probably is. But doesn't anyone else struggle with the "teach them the principles and let them govern themselves" approach and the presence of two handbooks written by Kirton McConkie attorneys?*

In practice, I've found almost all church leaders to be kind, practical people. But I do view this revision in particular as a way to separate/punish/marginalize those that don't fall in line. Maybe it's just my cynicism, but I'm struggling to see a plausible alternative.

*This is a joke. But I suspect it's true, at least in part.

If the handbooks were meant to govern the conduct of general populace of the Church, your point would be more compelling.

[falafel]

What other platform??

CB.

[Green Monstah]

CB.

Haha. You may be the only one. 11 thumbs down?!

[Green Monstah]

If the handbooks were meant to govern the conduct of general populace of the Church, your point would be more compelling.

If you're saying that there's no part of the handbook that is utilized to govern the general populace of the Church, then I disagree with your point. Simply because the handbook is drafted to guide local leadership does not mean that its contents do not affect the ways in which rank-and-file members interact with and experience the Church.

[Jeff Lebowski]

If you're saying that there's no part of the handbook that is utilized to govern the general populace of the Church, then I disagree with your point. Simply because the handbook is drafted to guide local leadership does not mean that its contents do not affect the ways in which rank-and-file members interact with and experience the Church.

Good grief we can’t have handbooks now?

New bishop: “Ok, how do I do this?”

SP: “Beats me. Just make it up as you go I guess.”

What could possibly go wrong?

[CardiacCoug]

I think people tend to overthink this issue when it just takes a little common sense. There is a difference between disagreeing and being disloyal. There is no problem with disagreeing with the church as long as that disagreement is done in a spirit of love and unity. Openly fighting against the church in a way that diminishes faith and leads people away is being disloyal. Stay within those parameters and don't bother your local leaders with your anxiety - plan your yes/no answers before the interview. And if you feel like you need to discuss it, share your disagreements in a spirit of love and humility and you will not have a problem 99.9% of the time.

Yes I agree with this of course. Either don’t go to the TR interview or give the right answers. The TR isn’t a chance to debate doctrinal points with your leaders — they have enough shit to deal with.

Some however think the TR questions pretty much mean that everybody has to agree on everything (church-related).

[Green Monstah]

Good grief we can’t have handbooks now?

New bishop: “Ok, how do I do this?”

SP: “Beats me. Just make it up as you go I guess.”

What could possibly go wrong?

That’s not exactly my point. Do you not recognize the tension?

[Uncle Ted]

I’m not sure any consistent “understanding” of the WoW exists. For example, this was posted in the comment section of this blog concerning eating meat sparingly and only in times of need:

Sparingly means without waste NOT very little.


ALL scriptures regarding the use of meat say that we are to eat meat in abundance and that it is for our use. Why members of the church insist on taking this one verse in the D&C and applying a totally different meaning that supersedes all other scriptures is beyond my understanding.
The Lord wants us to use the animal in a prudent way. Anyone that advocates NOT to eat meat is NOT of God.

https://askgramps.org/when-did-the-w...a-commandment/

Then there is the endless debate over hot drinks, mild drinks (including ones that you make yourself), etc. Maybe the best answer to this TR question is "Yes, I understand that the WoW is not a commandment like it says in 89:2" rather than trying to apply mental gymnastics to it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I’m not sure any consistent “understanding” of the WoW exists. For example, this was posted in the comment section of this blog concerning eating meat sparingly and only in times of need:


https://askgramps.org/when-did-the-w...a-commandment/

Then there is the endless debate over hot drinks, mild drinks (including ones that you make yourself), etc. Maybe the best answer to this TR question is "Yes, I understand that the WoW is not a commandment like it says in 89:2" rather than trying to apply mental gymnastics to it.

I don't get your point. It is a yes/no question. Always has been.