So I hear there’s a new Church Handbook of Instructions arriving shortly in the hands of those who matter.
Anyone care to share some of the changes in policies and procedures?
There’s been plenty of speculation, I’d like to know what is actually being implemented.
Like get faithful saints?
Get saints who appreciate the importance of the program? Perhaps saints who call their home teachers up and ask when they are coming over to teach?
I’ll stick with the President of the Church who states this program came from our Heavenly Father, as opposed to figthing to change it because some don’t do their calling.
Call me strange.
I read your claims that HT is an inspired program (US Spelling) and a non GA came up with it which lead to him becomming a GA. Why would the Lord need to use others to recieve inspiration for the church when he has a prophet and apostles that claim to be the ones who recieve revelation for the whole church? hum!
I am interested in hearing your reasons why other Church’s have been doing HT (different name) longer than the LDS church has? Did they receive the HT revelation first or could it be that Monson simply copied what another religion was already doing, changed the name and then stuck his name to it and it was called inspired?
I believe the HT program is a very good tool that can be used for good or evil depending on your belief in spies or not. Being an inspired program would depend on how much you trust the leaders to tell the truth. THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
Like that would happen.
George writes:
>I read your claims that HT is an inspired program (US Spelling) and a non GA came up with it which lead to him becomming a GA.
Let’s keep this real simple.
I quoted President Benson, who addressed the Church. It was his claim. You now claim that it is my claim that the HT Program is inspired from God.
Do you dispute President Benson’s view that the HT Program is inspired from our Heavenly Father?
Larry I understand your example but it is way off base. The problem is that I do understand the Priesthood, church callings and procedures and I realize that many in leadership positions do not follow the teachings of Christ.
You wrote “We don’t have to say okay to bad programs. We can be activist. If leaders don’t respond appropriately there is nothing wrong with us as parents implementing programs apart from the Church that will benefit our children. It is, after all, our responsibility anyway.”
I am doing as you suggested, I’m not saying ok to bad programs, I am being an activist. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Do what is right and follow church leaders without question. You cannot have it both ways.
If Church Leaders are wrong, they are wrong. No whitewash is going to change it.
Kim wrote “When President Monson startd the home teaching programme in 1963 while serving on the Adult Correlation Committee (and later the Priesthood Home Teaching Committee), he was not a member of the First Presidency. In fact, it was only shortly after that when he was even called as an apostle.”
I find it interesting the Quorum of the 12 or 1st P are not the ones who receive the inspiration for divine programs especially when they are supposed to be God’s mouthpiece.
Other religions were practing a form of HT way before Monson copied them and claimed it was from the Lord. Credit needs to be given to those whom Monson borrowed the ideal from instead of claiming it to be inspired.
HT is ok, it is the stories about how it got started that is wrong. It is ok that someone else thought of it first. It is ok to borrow the ideal. It is not ok to not be truthful. I believe that is one of the big 10.
The other option could be the other religion was in tune with God’s will before Monson was. hum!
“I find it interesting the Quorum of the 12 or 1st P are not the ones who receive the inspiration for divine programs especially when they are supposed to be God’s mouthpiece.”:
Who said it was a divine programme at the time?
“Other religions were practing a form of HT way before Monson copied them and claimed it was from the Lord. Credit needs to be given to those whom Monson borrowed the ideal from instead of claiming it to be inspired.”
what do you mean by this? Why couldn’t he have been inspired to use it within the membership of the church. he wasn’t “copying” per se, but probably saying “Hey this works elsewhere, let’s see if we can use something similar” I don’t see why he couldn’t have been inspired as well.
“The other option could be the other religion was in tune with God’s will before Monson was. hum!”
Ok, which other religion are you referring to?
Why do you feel a need to nitpick like this?
Mum
I can’t see your comment here, but it was in comments on the control panel…hmmm
That wasn’t me saying I was EQ president :) I was quoting someone else (tortdog). I put his comments in quotations and responded after that. lol
tortdog – I was referring to Kim’s posting which is “When President Monson startd the home teaching programme in 1963 while serving on the Adult Correlation Committee (and later the Priesthood Home Teaching Committee), he was not a member of the First Presidency. In fact, it was only shortly after that when he was even called as an apostle.”
Assuming Kim is correct, then I am asking why the inspiration for HT was not given to an apostle or the Prophet. Also the concept for HT was developed by another religion and modified by Monson.
I noticed you are from Houston. Houston has an interesting history of LDS culture. In the 1950’s there were two wards, the Spanish Ward (Bostic) and the English Ward (Melbourne). The Spanish Ward was later closed and all Stakes and Wards in Houston have been split off the Melbourne Ward.
There is a ward in Houston were a Bishop Counsleor does not live in the Stake the ward is in. The other counsleor (recently called) has been less active for years and only comes once in awhile.
With all the men in a ward, I find it odd the Bishop would need to go outside his stake to find a counsleor. Friend maybe?
Which ward are you in?
Regarding Houston (I recently moved from Houston to Austin), I grew up in California. My grandmother was a Houstonian and we moved here because we preferred Texas over Cal as Cal went to the nuts.
All the Houston wards/stakes seem pretty much the same as the wards that I have lived in including Northern/Southern Cal, Provo (law school), Chicago and Indiana. Bishops came from within the ward. The members of the bishoprics were all active. People in ward/stake callings lived in the ward/stake. Not sure of what you are talking about, but sounds a little screwy (unless it’s a Spanish ward that takes people from all over the city).
Regarding inspiration, I don’t believe that God only inspires the prophet or apostles in the creation or organization of programs. I see no reason that God would not inspire a man (Monson) to organize a program that was just as inspired as if the prophet himself did all the work. If the program comes from the same author (our Heavenly Father), the only thing that the prophet needs to do is recognize it and okay it (which he did).
At this point in time, the First Presidency has long established the HT program for the Church. It’s origin was not so much with Monson as it was with Christ. I read the New Testament and see the home teaching program being conducted by Peter and the other disciples. So it would NOT be strange that other churches had something similar. It just means that they read the Bible (that’s good). It’s ALSO not strange that Monson would organize the program in a way that is similar to how the NT describes. Right? In fact, if Monson were inspired I would expect it.
I guess I do not understand why you find it odd.
My perplexity is why some members of the Church do not believe that the HT program is inspired of our Heavenly Father or that they would benefit by having the HT program working in their own homes.
Home teaching is merely an upgrade of a program that was instituted around the early 1900’s called ward teaching, if my memory serves me correctly.
Pres. Monson did not introduce anything new, just an upgrade, based on his experiences as a Bishop visiting members of his ward.
For some reason a previous post of mine did not make it here.
My point was that Pres. Monson did not invent home teaching.
It was a change of name from the old ward teaching program that had been in place since the turn of the century, if my memory serves me correctly.
Larry
yes there seems to be some glitches with some comments not making it through. Hopefully that doesn’t continue!
TD Said:
“Like get faithful saints?
Get saints who appreciate the importance of the program? Perhaps saints who call their home teachers up and ask when they are coming over to teach?
I’ll stick with the President of the Church who states this program came from our Heavenly Father, as opposed to figthing to change it because some don’t do their calling.
Call me strange. ”
I’d rather call you someone who seems to think that the people are for the programs.
Not eating the forbidden fruit was also inspired counsel from God, but even that didn’t quite work out.
When circumstances change we should be able to re-evaluate our programs and see if there is something more effective we can do. God isn’t always going to just step in and give us the answer. He lets us work it out.
Case in point, the locally organized quorum of the seventy. Internal debate regarding the formation of this quorum went on for years, and it looks like many many general authorities had it wrong all along. It wasn’t until a junior apostle (BKP) opened up the understanding of the D&C to BRM that they realized they were completely in error. Then, after many years, the church changed. Was any harm really done? probably not, but we need to recognize that everything we have right now isn’t perfect and they may always be room for improvement.
>When circumstances change we should be able to re-evaluate our programs and see if there is something more effective we can do.
Agreed. What circumstances have changed within the last ten years to mandate modifications of the HT program?
>God isn’t always going to just step in and give us the answer. He lets us work it out.
Exactly. And we have a new handbook coming out right now. I wonder if home teaching will continue to be part of it?
“What circumstances have changed within the last ten years to mandate modifications of the HT program?”
It has never been less effective than now.
As a side, is it just me or did we loose most comments that were made yesterday?
You stated that circumstances have changed. Loss of effectiveness is not a change in circumstance. That’s a condition of the program, not a condition of the circumstances of the people the program is developed for.
What conditions among the saints have changed since the prophet told us that it was inspired of our Heavenly Father and a sacred duty?
JM, some ISPs still aren’t resolving to our new server.
Tortdog – It is the ward in the center of Houston.
I am going to be in Austin next week. I go there a couple times a month. Plus I have grandchildren that live there.
Are you helping to keep Austin WEIRD?
I assume you are a lawyer. What kind of law do you practice?
I am married to a lawyer.
It seems to be off and on. Just a while ago many comments from yesterday were missing, now I can’t see a bunch from today!
“More often than not, this is not the case. Many times the programs are developed at a local level and after being proved successful, they get brought to the attention of the FP and given a stamp of approcval”
I don’t care if the programs were started at a stake level or not, they are all approved by the first presidency and applied mostly church wide after that. My point being who are we to criticize and think we know better than the first presidency! That being said there is nothing wrong I believe in questioning things just not overiding directives from SLC.
“What I find strange is that this YM Leader from SLC would chastise the stake for running a church approved program that is fully accepted in other parts of the world.”
Yes, I know not every area uses scouting but as another post mentioned, in NA scouting is the YM program.Also, the wards who gave up on scouting had no other program in place.Just bball and other activities that were done at a drop of a hat.
“Gosh Michelle -You must have an interesting SP if he stopped following SLC commands. Is he still the SP?”
We have a different SP now but not because of the scouting fiasco. From what I heard, there was rumours that the scouting program was on its way out and some wards decided to cut scouts even though there was no official word from SLC. Rumours :)
I’m one of the few normal people in Austin.
I practice tax law for the AG.
And here I though the one redeeming quality of Our Thoughts was we had no lawyers, unlike many of the other places in the Bloggernacle. Well, at least we have no lawyer authors. :)
Michelle said “My point being who are we to criticize and think we know better than the first presidency! That being said there is nothing wrong I believe in questioning things just not overiding directives from SLC.”
I just have to ask – How are you able to question things when Church Leaders do not allow any fourum for to you question their dictates?
I was listening to the radio this morning while I was driving to work and the radio was on a christian station and the person talking said “does it have sound theology?”
It made me wonder why Church members are not allowed to question policies which would give Church Leaders the opportunity to explain the Sound Theology of their dicatates. I am assuming they would have or could invent Sound Theology for their dicatates.
tortdog – With your legal training to think things through, how do manage to explain to yourself the cult type techniques leaders use as being sound theology?
George,
What is your point?
The Church is a theocracy, not a democracy.
Your arguments make absolutely no sense. Your questions are those of someone who really doesn’t want answers, they just want to complain because everyone doesn’t consult them before making a decision.
That smacks of a personality disorder, commonly referred to as narcissism, where the sun rises and sets because they, and they alone, exist.
If you want to use ‘Christian’ broadcasters as the wise men of our day, you are welcome to it.
The real wise men know where to go.
Not every program is instituted by the Lord. However, when His servants implement a program it is the same as if the Lord commanded it.
They recognize full well that not every program is going to work the way that they envision it, since it has to pass through a number layers before it is implemented.
That just happens to be a reality.
Think about how much your employees desire to become entrepreneurs, after being under your inspired leadership. It boggles your mind.
Then think about how the Church Leaders must feel when they try to pass programs down to such willing followers as yourself. Boggle doesn’t begin to describe it. The difference is that they have an abundance of mercy, patience, long-suffering, because of their endowment from the Saviour.
On the other hand, you . . .
Larry – You are truly the second most uninspired and unrighteous person that I have read on this web site (blog). It is truly amazing that a person as nasty as you are would even claim to be LDS. Your writing points out very clearly that you do not have the Spirit of God with you.
Asking questions is not dissent.
You wrote “If you want to use ‘Christian’ broadcasters as the wise men of our day, you are welcome to it.” You made that up and that falls under the category of being a liar. You need to read the 10 Commandments.
I do think the Christian Broadcaster made an interesting statement and your cult like thinking stops you from seeing the truth.
Any doctrine or policy that is inspired would stand the test of being sound theology. Are you afraid your feeble testimony would disappear if some doctrine or policy could not pass a sound theology test? Is this why you follow cult methods and accuse those who do not blindly follow as being unworthy? What a sad and sick person you must be to resort to cult type pressure. People like you are the ones who give Mormons a bad name. You act like you live in a cult and most likely you are a cult member.
Prove me wrong and show me scriptures where they Lord requires me to believe cult type logic and not to use the knowledge of good and evil he gave Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
God wants man to think and learn and use wisdom. Satan on the other hand wants to think for you and for you to do as he says. You have gone full circle to the dark side.
You need to pray and ponder and think about why you are writing the stuff you do because it is not filled with light and truth.
I ask questions and it a sad day that you are not able to answer them but need to resort to cult answers.
I am interesting in hearing why you think being brainwashed and blindly following cult type ideals is what the Lord wants. You can use the BOM, D&C, PofG and even the Bible to support why cult like thinking is what the Lord wants. Lets make it real fair, you can use the Ensign, Friend, etc also.
And most of all use the new CHI manual to show how accussing others is what the Lord wants and requires of his followers.
Do you remember Jim Jones and that David K guy in Waco Texas? Their followers followed blindly and I think they were cults.
I do not believe the Lord wants you to act like you are in a cult. I am waiting for you to prove me wrong.
I believe there is a tithing scripture about proving the Lord. Read it for inspiration.
George
Can you show us where Larry was being nasty?
Just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean they are nasty.
And as well, I don’t see where anyone is expected to blindly follow the leaders. I have certainly never done that nor felt pushed to do so.
Hey Larry,
We should have you and some of the other local OT folks over to our place and we can all be nasty together. Maybe even have some nasty snacks too.
As long as there hot chili peppers. They are real nasty. :>)
George,
You said to Michelle: “I just have to ask – How are you able to question things when Church Leaders do not allow any fourum for to you question their dictates?”
That’s not a question. That’s a statement.
Again, you said:
“I was listening to the radio this morning while I was driving to work and the radio was on a christian station and the person talking said “does it have sound theology?â€
It made me wonder why Church members are not allowed to question policies which would give Church Leaders the opportunity to explain the Sound Theology of their dicatates. I am assuming they would have or could invent Sound Theology for their dicatates.”
This again is not a question. It is a statement.
You said to me:
“You are truly the second most uninspired and unrighteous person that I have read on this web site (blog). It is truly amazing that a person as nasty as you are would even claim to be LDS. Your writing points out very clearly that you do not have the Spirit of God with you.
Asking questions is not dissent.”
You may be right on the first part, but on the second part you are not asking questions. You are making statements.
You said:
” I do think the Christian Broadcaster made an interesting statement and your cult like thinking stops you from seeing the truth.
Any doctrine or policy that is inspired would stand the test of being sound theology.”
“Cult like”. As Rick would say: Puleeeeez.
Then again you say:
“Any doctrine or policy that is inspired would stand the test of being sound theology. Are you afraid your feeble testimony would disappear if some doctrine or policy could not pass a sound theology test? Is this why you follow cult methods and accuse those who do not blindly follow as being unworthy? What a sad and sick person you must be to resort to cult type pressure. People like you are the ones who give Mormons a bad name. You act like you live in a cult and most likely you are a cult member.”
My response:
How would you know? You can’t be accused of having a testimony of the Gospel, nor any understanding of the doctrine.
Just in case you can wipe the dust off your scriptures (that is nasty), take a look at D&C 1:24-28; 38.
Then again, your statement begs the questions: What is a sound theology test? Who decides if it is sound? Who would administer this test?
Answer: You?
You don’t understand your own theology. Your process is one that wouldn’t stand any test. You have no concept of how the Spirit can bear witness to inquiring individuals, without calling the result a “cult mentality”.
George, if you can’t read the scriptures because of some physical handicap, then I will pass on the inane statement about the scriptures.
If, on the other hand, your self-righteous ego forbids you from reading and praying about them, that says buckets about you.
You want the Brethern questioned on the basis of sound theology, and you want to eliminate the very messages God has given to us through them; and further you want to wittle away at the very foundation of His Church, of which He is the cornerstone and proclaim yourself as the one to determine sound theology.
Get real.
Larry the problem is you love to try and put others down with your words. Your self rightoues attitude is so non God like. Members who use words and actions like those you have written today are one of the reasons the LDS church is considered a CULT. You really are not being an example for others to follow.
You wrote “You want the Brethern questioned on the basis of sound theology, and you want to eliminate the very messages God has given to us through them; and further you want to wittle away at the very foundation of His Church, of which He is the cornerstone and proclaim yourself as the one to determine sound theology.”
You know very well that I have not proclaimed myself as the one to determine sound theology. Why do you make stuff up?
You also wrote “you want to wittle away at the very foundation of His Church” I say truth is truth and lies are lies regardless of who says it. Is your religion built on a pack of lies that can be wittled down? I believe that truth can withstand questions and I am not afraid to examine my beliefs.
I feel very sorry for you. I am going to pray for you and ask Jesus to touch your heart so that you may learn the truth of his love.
Wet your finger touch your computer screen and if you are one of the chosen ones you will feel the power.
Are you brave enough to try it or dumb enough to try it?
Just have faith and follow the directions and you will be saved.
Why did you question it? Are you not faithful and believe?
Curious – Who wet their finger and touched the monitor?
Like lambs to slaughter.
George,
What on earth are you talking about? Your previous post is the biggest piece of gibberish I have ever read.
You sound like someone who is out of control.
You said: “You know very well that I have not proclaimed myself as the one to determine sound theology. Why do you make stuff up? . . .I believe that truth can withstand questions and I am not afraid to examine my beliefs.”
What is your criteria for determining truth? What are your beliefs?
If you are taking them from the scriptures you are contradicting yourself.
Remember saying this:
“I am interesting in hearing why you think being brainwashed and blindly following cult type ideals is what the Lord wants. You can use the BOM, D&C, PofG and even the Bible to support why cult like thinking is what the Lord wants. Lets make it real fair, you can use the Ensign, Friend, etc also.
And most of all use the new CHI manual to show how accussing others is what the Lord wants and requires of his followers.”
You surely aren’t a member of a cult, are you?
Gee Larry, I allow you to use all of the LDS resources and you cannot find one instance of where blind faith is a requirement. Maybe you are not using true doctrine for your statements.
Kim and Mary were quite fond of pointing out that some LDS Theology is not found in official church doctrine and thereby can be considered tradition. If you cannot prove your belief of blind faith following and asking questions is wrong then I think Kim and Mary’s term of tradition might be justified for your crazy theory.
LDS leaders may want you to follow them like sheep but if you cannot prove this is a requirement via official church doctrine, then you are promoting false theology at least according to the tradition theory.
Kim and Mary used their tradition theory to explain why Blacks were denied the Priesthood and now it is ok for Blacks to hold the PH. It really was more to hold BY as a Prophet even though he denied the PH to Blacks. The never lead us astray speach.
Simple question Larry – where in the scriptures does God command men to follow leaders who make bad choices claiming it was from God.
Truth is always true and a lie is always a lie. Maybe in your case the truth changes.
“Kim and Mary were quite fond of pointing out that some LDS Theology is not found in official church doctrine and thereby can be considered tradition.”
Huh? I am becoming as bewildered as Larry.
“Larry the problem is you love to try and put others down with your words. Your self rightoues attitude is so non God like.”
What are you talking about, George?
George,
“Kim and Mary used their tradition theory to explain why Blacks were denied the Priesthood and now it is ok for Blacks to hold the PH. It really was more to hold BY as a Prophet even though he denied the PH to Blacks. The never lead us astray speach.”
Kim and Mary have expressed an opinion on that doctrine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
However, the Brethern have never issued a statement like that. Therefore your conclusion is based on your own philosophy, not whether or not the Brethern actually lied.
You see George, you really don’t read the scriptures, nor do you understand them.
Anciently, you and I would never have held the priesthood, under the Law of Moses, because we are not of the tribe of Levi. Would that have made Moses a liar, because you would claim that God wouldn’t do that.
In every dispensation there have been those separated out from holding the preisthood. The reasons are known to God.
It is not up to you to determine that Joseph, or Brigham, or anyone else is a liar based on the principle of who gets the priesthood and who doesn’t.
Of course, if you know more than God then I could be wrong.
Larry, you just love to make stuff up to fit your view point. I believed you have claimed to have been a EQP and a HPGL. Your lies and falshooods do not fit in with those titles. I’m sure you believe you are a shinning example of what a Mormon should be. I can only wonder how many people you have caused to leave the church.
Kim and Mary’s tradition theory seems to be a valid theory when it comes to Mormon Theology. Some items of Mormon Theology might not be Sound Religious Theology but would fit into their Tradition Theology.
This morning I was asked why men are allowed to wear pants in the chapel but women are to wear skirts and dresses. There is no Sound Religious reason for this but there is tradition for this practice. Is there any scripture to justify this? No Only traditions keep women from wearing pant suits to church. Tradition is why men wear white shirts. Wearing a blue shirt does not make one evil but it brings out the cult mind set that everyone must dress alike.
Regarding your statement that I don’t read the scriptures or understand them. Your cult techniques show you don’t have an answer to the question. A humble man would admidt he does not know. I believe I can find a scripture to justify being humble. Can you find one to justify being proud and arrogant?
Use the new CHI and see what it says regarding your cult programs.
Jsut so you understand – Cult Practices are EVIL and not from God.
Goodbye George.
George
Holy Cow. And you say Larry is nasty? Larry is making WAY more sense than you are, especially in this comment (#88). Larry is not a liar, now I have to wonder how much more of one you are (especially since you are also Bill and are pretending to not be. I cannot figure out who you are trying to fool).
I see Larry is not capable of defending his position using the scriptures.
Mary said “Holy Cow. And you say Larry is nasty?” I guess it is hard to hear your tradition theory being used in a different format.
George/Bill
I am not certain what you mean by that. What I mean is how you attack Larry in such a manner. Calling him a liar simply because he does not agree with your point of view. Sometimes your comments are quite difficult to comprehend.
I don’t have a “tradition theory”. My belief is some people have turned traditions into doctrine, but certainly not all. And no, it is not hard to “hear it in a different format”. I just certainly don’t like being used to fuel your diatribe against someone else.
Larry – I would like to apolize to you for the things I wrote and I hope you will accept it. I feel great sorrow for what I wrote.
My father has been in the hospital for a couple of weeks and he had a stroke this morning.
I do hope you will forgive me.
George/Bill
I am sorry about your father’s stroke. I hope he is able to recover soon.
Apology accepted. I do wish your father well.
This is a stressful time in anyone’s life when a loved one suffers. Often we fear we are about to lose them. My prayers are with you and your family.
thank you for understanding.
“In the quiet heart is hidden sorrow that the eye can’t see”
George, I hope for the best for your and your family.
It just goes to show that you never really do know all the motivating factors behind someone’s actions, words, or thoughts.
George:
>With your legal training to think things through, how do manage to explain to yourself the cult type techniques leaders use as being sound theology?
I am very logical in my approach to the gospel. It’s that logic that makes me wonder how one could accept the Bible as the word of God and believe that Jesus the Christ was not a person other than God the Father.
There are times that I fail to understand a doctrine (or question a practice), but (i) those instances are few, (ii) I have learned from experience that they are answered in due course and (iii) I cannot ignore God’s answers to my prayers.
tortdog – Do you believe God wants us to not question local church leaders in anything they do or say?
Several have mentioned that the Home Teaching program was formally introduced in 1963. That’s true, but the principle and practice of priesthood leaders visiting the homes of members to help and watch over them is much older than that. It was expounded in Doctrine & Covenants 20:47, 53-55.
Joseph Smith received visits from priesthood teachers in his own home: For the interesting story of William Farrington Cahoon, Joseph Smith’s home teacher, see L. Tom Perry, “Home Teaching—A Sacred Calling,†Ensign, Nov. 1978, p. 69.