ldseastcoast

Actually, just to clarify one note: I do know what the STMC is. It's a committee of brethren who monitor publications and now the Internet for speech by members that is critical of leaders. They then forward the information to the member's local leaders for action, and the action, if any, is at the discretion of those local leaders. Trust me, I do NOT get my info from the hateful anti's. There was reference to it in the mainstream media, citing a Church source. If I can find the link, I will post it. In the meantime, such a committee is clearly supported by D&C 123: Doctrine and Covenants 123 Bottom line, as I said, I love anything that stymies critical speech. Oh that I were high enough on the ladder to serve on that committee.

I am very much aware of that passage. I wrote a blog just now about all this, and I've cited this. However, my issue is with the way people express their dissent in public. What one believes themselves is their own business, but when they speak out against the Church, even if it's as small as speaking out against curriculum. As I've stated, this is my OPINION. Are you expecting me to not think for myself and reach my own beliefs? Is that not ironic? You can cite fictional stake presidents all you like, but I don't know what it has to do with the matter at hand. As for the STM Committee, it's public knowledge, and I became aware of it during the September Six era, when members thought they could speak out critically without consequence. To be clear, it was something I was not in any way involved in. At the time, I was a mere youth. I cherish the STMC because I love anything that stymies critical speech. Again, my own opinion.

Well, I would gently admonish that you did the same: You are taking issue with my own thinking, while backbiting me for taking issue with your thinking. I would also point out that the Church takes action against those who criticize Church leaders, witness the STM Committee, which has been acknowledged by a General Authority. I am not about to risk my standing in the Church by criticizing, questioning or commenting on the decisions or words of our leaders. Obviously, I feel questioning ANY decision by ANY leader is wrong. In Church, I keep my mouth shut. When something is proposed, I offer neither criticism nor question, for to do so would be in my mind not sustaining my leaders. I do not consider it my place to offer any comments whatsoever, for to do so would be to bring the spirit of contention. It seems we differ on this matter. We're going to have to agree to disagree and in the interest of not bringing the spirit of contention, I shall draw my comments in this thread to a close.

Thank you for these quotes. They serve to prove my point. To wit: I read that to include backbiting about Sunday School doctrine, but as you so eloquently point out, we can decide for ourselves. And I speak as to this quote: This, I feel, applies to all aspects of the Church. Enough said.

Interesting how you single me out but rebuketh the one who accused me of false doctrine not. But I sustain your decision and warning hereby heeded.

Again, it's your moral agency to question, but I, for one, sustain the Brethren and if they say marry within my race, then I shall do so (and did). And I would point out that numerous General Authorities have echoed this advice, and I speak as pertains to race factoring into one's decision surrounding the selection of an EC. Food for thought.

Here moral agency comes into play. I believe it to be disrespectful, arrogant and prideful to in any way question the counsel of those in authority over us, past or present. When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done, as the saying goes. I personally believe it to be akin to the ungrateful child crying and refusing to eat the dinner that was prepared for him when it comes to questioning the teachings of our leaders, or the decisions of the same, i.e. what lessons make it into the manuals. Cite all the scripture and talks you wish. Those references pertain to studying and praying on one's own, not loudly in in a public manner questioning leaders' decisions. That, however, is my position on the matter. If you're okay with questioning your leaders, then question away. As pertains to my own beliefs, I find it absolutely unhealthy to question in any way our leaders. To do so is, in my opinion, dangerousy close to apostasy and is at the very least a display of the utmost disrespect. However, it is my moral agency to take that position, just as it's your agency to question, though I have to wonder how much respect you have for the leaders when you question. But hey..whatever...to each his or her own.

You have such hatred in your heart and you bring the spirit of contention. I wasn't aware that sustaining our leaders was "false doctrine." Yea, I say unto thee that questioning the material in the manuals is akin to questioning our leaders. And no, I am not being sarcastic, facetious or insincere. Sustain your leaders and question not. Doest thou have the authority to question our General Authorities? Surely I thinketh not! Then question not, and sustain the Brethren.

Now, now..we shalt bringeth the spirit of contention not. Let us learn what the Brethren have instructed that we learn, without question, comment or argument.

I wasn't aware that upholding Church standards brought out such anger in peoples' hearts. Anyway, there's no need to discuss this further, to avoid bringing the spirit of contention.

Your sarcasm is astounding, MOE. Your contention is obvious. Of course the Conference addresses are in the Ensign, but that does not excuse pure laziness, which you have certainly exhibited.

I think the real problem is that someone is so disrespectful and closed to the messages the Brethren and the GA's have as to admit to falling asleep during GC.

Sure, the Brethren encourage it. But at the same time, I would say that experiencing Conference at church is far better. At the end of the day, it's all down to moral agency.

You certainly are bringing the spirit of contention today. Your example of Utah meetinghouses is moot. If there's enough room for them to attend church, why is there not room for them to attend General Conference? While there is no hard and fast rule, surely it's a more spiritual experience to participate in church rather than at home with your feet up like it's a typical Saturday afternoon.

Nor am I. I am merely point out indisputable fact. You needn't bring the spirit of contention.

Well then by your logic, you should never have to go to sacrament meeting again, right? Obviously, that scripture wasn't meant to excuse you from church activity.

I can help with that...laziness. Why is it lazy? Well, what's the point of joining a church-- ANY church-- if you're just going to sit at home and phone it in? That's really what you're doing when you're watching it on TV. Yes, you can argue that you'll just be driving to the meetinghouse to watch it on a bigger screen TV anyway, but that's not the point. The point of being in a church is to be IN CHURCH. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to say to you.

Yes, it IS my opinion. You needn't have such anger in your heart.

It smacks of laziness and an unwillingness to fully participate.

I think this is great. Getting the word out now will encourage members to participate by going to their ward or stake meetinghouse, as opposed to sitting back at home.

Hello all, I am on the east coast, where the Church isn't as strong as it is back west, but will be one day. I look forward to lots of great discussions.