cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Religion
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-23-2012, 06:19 PM   #11
Tex
Senior Member
 
Tex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
Tex is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ute4ever View Post
It seems as though Richard Dutcher isn't the only one with an ego as large as Delicate Arch. Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe, just maybe, you don't have an all-encompassing knowledge of every last policy in the church, past and present?
It crossed my mind once. Back in Primary, I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters View Post
Administration in the church is codified in the handbooks. One of the books is for public consumption. The other isn't. (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
No, not wrong, but there's no prohibition against a bishopric member showing you a section you're curious about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters View Post
I've not looked in the private handbook (I'm not invited to). However, it strikes me as unlikely that what Ute4ever has described is actually in that handbook.

Given that his stake president said what he said, I think we could consider a couple of possibilities:
1. It is the stake president's opinion.
2. (the more likely possibility)--that he was instructed to do these things from a traveling/regional general authority in one of the leadership meetings. It's a kind of "off-the-books" administration. Which is likely regional in nature to the extent that the purveyors of it are communicating it to stake presidents and bishops. When the church leadership wants uniformity and a clear understanding about something not in the admin manuals, they send out First Presidency letters to those leaders.
Possibly, although the idea a priesthood leader would automatically presume guilt and "yank" a recommend on no other detail than the fact of a separation seems highly unlikely to even be a regional verbal directive.

I also find the morality "scale" implausible. There are reasons to proceed deliberately in granting a sealing cancellation/clearance (for example, the impact it will have on children of the former union), but I don't view it as strictly a moral issue, and I doubt the GAs do either.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?"
"And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..."

- Cali Coug

"Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got."

- Brigham Young
Tex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 09:40 PM   #12
ute4ever
I must not tell lies
 
ute4ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,103
ute4ever is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex View Post
I don't view it as strictly a moral issue, and I doubt the GAs do either.
Nice pedestal you place yourself on.
ute4ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.