This topic is now closed to further replies.
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
Was chatting at Scouts last night - RIP and good riddance BSA - with an expert on Russia.
Asked him 'bout the announced Temple in Russia; he thinks St. Petersburg; I don't know as I dont' study that country much,,,
He said it could be 10+ years away like when Kiev Temple was announced
Curious as to if Church HQ's legal team advised President Nelson or Bishop Davies to not announce the Russia Temple until a location had been selected and approved.
Laughed at the response to the lawyers: Thank you for your advice. This meeting is over.
Curious as to what steps are in place before a Temple is announced (site acquisition, govt permitting approval, etc.)?
Also I'd like to attend the dedication but not sure who would sponsor my Visa as a US passport won't get you in Russia, especially not after their recent laws regarding foreigners proselytizing?
It is something of a truism among Christians generally, and Latter-day Saints more specifically, that martyrdom has frequently been what Hugh Nibley (who the Church's enemies love to hate) called "a prophet's reward." The cases of Zechariah, Abinadi, Stephen, James the Just, most of the original 12 Apostles, not to mention Jesus himself, demonstrate that the world - not excluding the religious world - has little tolerance for any who have the temerity to remind them that God expects something better than the mere polite navigation of societal currents.
While it is easy, with hindsight, to respond to such events with platitudes like "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church," in every case that I know of, those who followed a martyred prophet regarded the prophet's death as nothing less than tragic, if not outright disastrous. Authentic martyrs don't go out of their way to court martyrdom, and the followers of authentic martyrs don't seek to throw their prophets to the lions.
We do not live in a time when the message delivered by the Lord's prophets is at all popular. As usual, that message runs counter to prevailing cultural winds. But we are blessed to live in a time - and long may it continue! - when they are able to deliver their message in relative safety.
But as dreadful as the martyrdom of a prophet is, it isn't irrecoverable. After the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, a few dissenters and ambitious individuals left the Church, in some cases taking some followers with them; but the body of the Church recovered from the emotional shock, picked themselves up, and followed the legitimate leadership of the Twelve. And the Church, despite often-fierce opposition from various quarters, has survived and even thrived ever since.
What is - and always has been - far more disastrous to the Church than the death of any leader, is the spectre of apostasy. Not apostasy from the Church - that always happens - but apostasy of the Church. Nibley, again, in arguing that the primitive Church was always expected to be taken from the earth, pointed out that its demise wasn't expected to be brought about by destruction, or even defection, but by the Church abandoning its faith. As he put it, the Church in that generation was faced with a choice between "saving its soul by remaining true to the faith, or saving its skin by coming to terms with the world." (Quoted from memory.)
To those who see the Church as faced with the same choice in our generation, the lesson is clear. The martyrdom of Joseph the Prophet was in every sense a disaster - but a recoverable one. But if the Church in the latter days were to surrender to the world on matters of faith and morality, as the Church in former days did, then that would be a disaster from which the Church could never recover.
That is why I, along with many others, am so frankly bewildered by those who claim to be Latter-day Saints, but who seem to be urging just such a surrender on a currently fashionable issue.
There may be some who will interpret this as some kind of "slam" or insult. I assure you that it is no such thing. It represents my sober, calm and considered position. I have held it for a number of years now, and I have never been presented with any arguments that might make me reconsider that position.
So the question for discussion is this: why should the Church's abandoning its doctrinal position on conjugal marriage, if such an abandonment were to happen, not be seen as a mere surrender to the shifting fashions of a fallen world?
I'm surprised to admit this but I can honestly say that may favorite talk of this entire General Conference came from one of the sisters. It was Bonnie Oscarson's talk on service. Hands down. She touched on what it really means to be a member of the church and a disciple of Christ.
Anybody else have a favorite talk.?
Did you notice that also? When we stood to sing the half-time hymn in priesthood session there were no lyrics showing up on the screen like they normally do.
According to United Latter-day Saints:
"Many members of the church noticed a change in the broadcast this past general conference weekend: there were no hymn lyrics written on screen during the congregational hymns.
According to lds.org, the change was deliberate:
We are no longer broadcasting the lyrics to the congregational hymn.
Why, you ask?
All the world receives the same video feed. We then add over 90 live languages to that video. In a global church, it no longer makes sense to have everyone view the English lyrics on their screen."
I just read the conference talk titled "Trust Not in the Arm of Flesh" given by Elder Benson (apostle at the time) in Oct 1967. Having read this conference talk/report, I'm shocked that some of these words came from an apostle who was supposed to be the Lord's mouthpiece at that time. For example:
"There is no doubt that the so-called civil rights movement as it exists today is used as a Communist program for revolution in America just as agrarian reform was used by the Communists to take over China and Cuba."
There are other parts of this talk that I find extremely disturbing, but, even if Elder Benson was just speaking as a man (during a general conference talk), then surely his talk was still vetted/reviewed by the 1st Presidency/prophet, correct?
Also, if prophets/apostles/leaders are fallible, then how can one truly be sure that their words/guidance (at the time it is given) is, in fact, from God? Is this done just by the spirit?
IMO, Elder Benson's words/guidance in this talk were disturbing and in no way from God. As a less-active member, should I just sweep talks like this under the rug and pretend like it never happened?
I don't mean to offend anyone here, but I'm generally curious how you reconcile and/or work through such conflicting talks/guidance.