- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Cwald- I have read both copies and what is being discussed is in volume 2. Volume 2 discusses the worthiness issue regarding preforming ordinances as well as the WoW. I think you will be happy to know that under the WoW it says nothing of beer and I find the wording on “hot drinks” very interesting. I think it leaves a lot of room for interpretation. I also went to volume 1 and looked at requirements for a temple recommend and it says to refer to the temple recommend book for questions. It also states that they are not to deviate from the questions.
My only point was that I think this is a step forward by the Church. I also think it is worth saying that as with all things Church this only has as much power as you give it.
I talked with a couple friends who attended the training and they shared Ray’s opinions. They both felt like for the first time the Church was attempting to address real issues and give individuals more autonomy in their religious lives. I have some real trust issues with the Church but I think it is only fair to give them credit when they make a positive step forward no matter how small it is.
behappy wrote:Cwald- I have read both copies and what is being discussed is in volume 2. Volume 2 discusses the worthiness issue regarding preforming ordinances as well as the WoW. I think you will be happy to know that under the WoW it says nothing of beer and I find the wording on “hot drinks” very interesting. I think it leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
I also went to volume 1 and looked at requirements for a temple recommend and it says to refer to the temple recommend book for questions. It also states that they are not to deviate from the questions.
My only point was that I think this is a step forward by the Church. I also think it is worth saying that as with all things Church this only has as much power as you give it.
I talked with a couple friends who attended the training and they shared Ray’s opinions. They both felt like for the first time the Church was attempting to address real issues and give individuals more autonomy in their religious lives. I have some real trust issues with the Church but I think it is only fair to give them credit when they make a positive step forward no matter how small it is.
Okay, fair enough.
behappy wrote:. I think you will be happy to know that under the WoW it says nothing of beer and I find the wording on “hot drinks” very interesting. I think it leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
Oh do tell? How much interpretation do you think?
It says the “only official interpretation of ‘hot drinks’ … means tea and coffee.” I am not sure that was a change from previous policy, or what extra room that leaves? I am curious. It doesn’t mention “beer” or any other form of alcoholic beverage, but I read that as assumed. 21.3.11 in Book 2, page 194 just clarifies policy on certain points. It isn’t a replacement for D&C 89. That’s my reading of it, anyway.
Fwiw, I said it’s been way overblown in some discussions. I’ve read a few, mostly pre-training, that practically called it a massive change and retrenchment into an ultra-authoritarian position. All I meant is that I think it was a clarification to what the intent has been all along – not a massive change. I understand it’s a big deal personally for some people – particularly those who are exlcuded by it, but that’s true of absolutely anything we might discuss. After all, if something excludes someone, to them it is a big deal.
However, when you look at what is “restricted” to TR holding MP members, it’s only those things that carry an “official stamp of approval” by someone acting for the Church in an official capacity. Seriously, the ordinances listed are that type of ordinance – so it’s no wonder the performance of those ordinances is restricted to those who are seen as “ministers” of the religion.
I’m not saying I agree 100% with the policy, but I certainly can understand it and have a hard time condemning it in any way – again, given the specific ordinances that are listed.
Here is an interesting BKP post from NOM. What do you think? Quote:It’s true Bishop, BKP has a hidden side!
I heard BKP speak 20 years ago in a regional leadership meeting here in SOCAL. He said the same thing about keeping the church simple. He related the following. A few years ago he had traveled to Mexico to organize a Stake from what was a District. They sent down to this town dozens of boxes of manuals, and forms, and books that the new stake needed. As they were training the new SP, he looked overwhelmed at all the boxes. BKP said that as he got on the plane to fly home, he turned to his traveling companion (another GA) and said “What have we done to these poor people, we have turned the simple gospel they were following into a burden!”
More on BKP, I saved this from an old internet list I was on. This is from a BYU Prof’s encounter with some visiting 70s.
Quote:
A BYU prof recently met with 2 members of the 1Q 70. He asked them if the FP
and Q12 were aware of the number of young people, including even returned
missionaries, leaving the church. They said they were aware, and planned to
find ways to use the internet to better reach people in their teens and 20s.
(Prof thinks, “riiiight.”)
The 70s said that one of the biggest impediments to change was Thomas
Monson, who sees himself as the last protector of tradition in the
governing quorums. They said that one of the strongest advocates for change
(they actually used the word “liberal”) was Boyd Packer, who made such
radical suggestions as eliminating virtually *all* meetings, and moving the
bulk of the responsibility for gospel teaching to the home.
I don’t know about the validity of the quotes, but I really do believe Pres. Packer is much more “liberal” about many things than most people realize. His stance on “moral issues” overwhelms everything else. I’m not saying he is “a liberal” – by any stretch, but I do believe he is much more complex than most people think.
Ray, This is EXCELLENT. Thank you for posting this. Your post will be very helpful for me to refer to since last time I checked there was not a transcript of the roundtable discussion. As a bishop, this is more than I could have hoped for and it came at a crucial time for me. Thanks again my friend.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.