What's your take on this guy's question?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

I've always "been able" to admit that. You've apparently been unable to understand that.



Heh, no it doesn't. You apparently still don't understand.

Explain.

Here's how I see it.

Perspective A

Church can't improve. Church is always perfect. Church is always managed according to God's will. therefore, any questioning of a church practice is absurd, since you've defined the current state as perfect.

You seem to take this perspective, but I'll allow you to back off it if you want.

Perspective B

Church can improve. Implies church can improve a process for the better. If something can be better tomorrow than today, then today it is imperfect and improvable. If we accept that, then we can't use lame, default argument "it's a revealed, inspired practice you have no business challenging it". Because actually it could be changed and improved tomorrow.


So when I say church discipline process has room for improvement. You can take perspective A and tell me Tex lame, default "it's revealed, so of course it's correct and necessary and can't be improved". Or you can take perspective B and give me some reasons and logic why you think it is correct and necessary. That's fine and it will probably be an agree to disagree at the end, but you can't shove it back in my face and tell me I'm wrong because it's a revealed practice.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Explain.

Here's how I see it.

Perspective A

Church can't improve. Church is always perfect. Church is always managed according to God's will. therefore, any questioning of a church practice is absurd, since you've defined the current state as perfect.

You seem to take this perspective, but I'll allow you to back off it if you want.

Perspective B

Church can improve. Implies church can improve a process for the better. If something can be better tomorrow than today, then today it is imperfect and improvable. If we accept that, then we can't use lame, default argument "it's a revealed, inspired practice you have no business challenging it". Because actually it could be changed and improved tomorrow.


So when I say church discipline process has room for improvement. You can take perspective A and tell me Tex lame, default "it's revealed, so of course it's correct and necessary and can't be improved". Or you can take perspective B and give me some reasons and logic why you think it is correct and necessary. That's fine and it will probably be an agree to disagree at the end, but you can't shove it back in my face and tell me I'm wrong because it's a revealed practice.

Sure, you are free to disagree with anything and everything in the church, but what's the proper way to bring about change?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Sure, you are free to disagree with anything and everything in the church, but what's the proper way to bring about change?

I'm not on a crusade for change, just discussing with some internet friends.

But now that you mention it, is there a way to bring about change on an issue like that? I'd guess discussing on anonymous internet boards is about the most influence you'd have without putting yourself on a ward and stake blacklist.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Explain.

Here's how I see it.

Here's how I see it.

Perspective C

Church is wrong on a bunch of issues, but a bunch of geriatic men with decades-old sense of values are too set in their ways to get with the modern era. Occasionally someone with a correct sense of right wanders into the crosshairs (All Hail Spencer Kimball) and happens to fix problems that long needed fixing. God pays attention to what's going on, but usually keeps his dog out of the fight except when his servants go too far, at which point He steps in and causes a heart attack, allowing other more reasonable men to take over.

This is the perspective you usually take, but I'll allow you to back off it if you want.

Perspective D

The church is an imperfect organization governed by imperfect men who, however, earnestly seek inspiration and are frequently granted it. God knows the end from the beginning, and thus puts certain people in certain places and inspires them in certain ways so as to accomplish his ultimate designs. Revelation, rather than being a vending machine where you insert your 75 cent prayer and retrieve your Coca-cola response, tends to be an evolutionary affair fraught with mistakes, struggle, and experience. What comes out in the end, though not always perfect, is legitmately called inspired and ought to be supported by the God-fearing.

...

So when I say church discipline is of God, you can take perspective C and tell me santos lame, default "it changed, therefore it must have been wrong". Or you can take perspective D and give me some reasons and logic why you think it is an inspired process that could still use improvement. That's fine and it will probably be an agree to disagree at the end, but you can't shove it back in my face and tell me I'm wrong because it changed.

---

See, there are two sides to this coin.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I was annoyed when men were no longer permitted to teach primary or youth classes on their own.

wow you're really out there. That doesn't qualify, try harder.

That was the result of lawsuits, so the lawyers made them do it that way.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Sure, you are free to disagree with anything and everything in the church, but what's the proper way to bring about change?

Change comes top down. In a hierarchal church, that's what happens. The bottom has no input and the bottom's input is deemed irrelevant by the top.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

Here's how I see it.

Perspective C

Church is wrong on a bunch of issues, but a bunch of geriatic men with decades-old sense of values are too set in their ways to get with the modern era. Occasionally someone with a correct sense of right wanders into the crosshairs (All Hail Spencer Kimball) and happens to fix problems that long needed fixing. God pays attention to what's going on, but usually keeps his dog out of the fight except when his servants go too far, at which point He steps in and causes a heart attack, allowing other more reasonable men to take over.

This is the perspective you usually take, but I'll allow you to back off it if you want.

Perspective D

The church is an imperfect organization governed by imperfect men who, however, earnestly seek inspiration and are frequently granted it. God knows the end from the beginning, and thus puts certain people in certain places and inspires them in certain ways so as to accomplish his ultimate designs. Revelation, rather than being a vending machine where you insert your 75 cent prayer and retrieve your Coca-cola response, tends to be an evolutionary affair fraught with mistakes, struggle, and experience. What comes out in the end, though not always perfect, is legitmately called inspired and ought to be supported by the God-fearing.

...

So when I say church discipline is of God, you can take perspective C and tell me santos lame, default "it changed, therefore it must have been wrong". Or you can take perspective D and give me some reasons and logic why you think it is an inspired process that could still use improvement. That's fine and it will probably be an agree to disagree at the end, but you can't shove it back in my face and tell me I'm wrong because it changed.

---

See, there are two sides to this coin.

You are out to lunch, man. Perspective D is exactly my perspective. Perspective C is so far from the way I think it's a joke to even try to pin it on me. I AM the one giving reasons why I don't like church court system and have over and over. Your first and only response to that in this thread was the Tex lame default "By "the church" I assume you mean "by revelation" and thus "by the Lord", right?"

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

You are out to lunch, man. Perspective D is exactly my perspective. Perspective C is so far from the way I think it's a joke to even try to pin it on me.

Ah! Santos may finally be seeing a twinkle of The Light. Welcome to my world, bro.

Originally Posted by jay santos

I AM the one giving reasons why I don't like church court system and have over and over. Your first and only response to that in this thread was the Tex lame default "By "the church" I assume you mean "by revelation" and thus "by the Lord", right?"

That isn't my "only" response. The discussion got sidetracked. I was beginning the conversation by establishing up-front that the church is not arbitrarily separate from the God in whose name it acts. If Perspective D (which is also my perspective) is truly yours too, then what I said should not have given you any problem.

But you're too busy demagoguing me with Perspective A and "allowing" me to back off it.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

Ah! Santos may finally be seeing a twinkle of The Light. Welcome to my world, bro.



That isn't my "only" response. The discussion got sidetracked. I was beginning the conversation by establishing up-front that the church is not arbitrarily separate from the God in whose name it acts. If Perspective D (which is also my perspective) is truly yours too, then what I said should not have given you any problem.

But you're too busy demagoguing me with Perspective A and "allowing" me to back off it.

In the future, feel free to skip that step where you do the lame Tex default "it's a revealed program" thing because it could possibly mislabel you to others as being a perspective A guy. You can assume people here already have that foundation.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

In the future, feel free to skip that step where you do the lame Tex default "it's a revealed program" thing because it could possibly mislabel you to others as being a perspective A guy. You can assume people here already have that foundation.

I take very little here for granted. Thanks for the tip, though.