Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference

[rongo]

Attached are my notes from a recent local conference. In attendance were 2 general authorities, 2 temple presidents, a mission president, an area authority, and local stake presidencies, bishops, elders quorum presidents, and ward mission leaders. I tried pasting it, but you know how this site is sometimes . . . it won't let me paste the text. So, Word doc. it is.

It really was a good conference. I wish these things happened more often.

Enjoy!

Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference.docx

[rongo]

Note the pretty obvious inoculation of "rock in a hat." It was brought up pretty much just to bring it up. That may have been new for many there. The emphasis was on the seer stone being like a smart phone (reading words on a lit field). I'm with B.H. Roberts in believing that Joseph did not read words off the stone (David Whitmer's belief), but I appreciate the exposure of this at all. 

[Maidservant]

Thank you.

[HappyJackWagon]

31 minutes ago, rongo said:

Note the pretty obvious inoculation of "rock in a hat." It was brought up pretty much just to bring it up. That may have been new for many there. The emphasis was on the seer stone being like a smart phone (reading words on a lit field). I'm with B.H. Roberts in believing that Joseph did not read words off the stone (David Whitmer's belief), but I appreciate the exposure of this at all. 

The iPhone comparison is laughable. I wish they'd stop making it. No one really things the rock in a hat acted like the iPhone. All it does it make leaders look like they're grasping for anything that could be considered "reasonable" in today's world. But IF Joseph really was reading words directly from a rock like an iPhone then the BoM would be a very tight translation. The room for error, anachronisms, 19th century language, distinctive bible errors unique to Joseph's bible edition, are not explainable. I don't see how one can make an argument for tight translation while also arguing that mistakes are understandable or even expected in the BoM.

 

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The iPhone comparison is laughable. I wish they'd stop making it. No one really things the rock in a hat acted like the iPhone. All it does it make leaders look like they're grasping for anything that could be considered "reasonable" in today's world. But IF Joseph really was reading words directly from a rock like an iPhone then the BoM would be a very tight translation. The room for error, anachronisms, 19th century language, distinctive bible errors unique to Joseph's bible edition, are not explainable. I don't see how one can make an argument for tight translation while also arguing that mistakes are understandable or even expected in the BoM.

 

Agreed. I think Elder Roberts's explanation (which was part of the curriculum at that time) in the early 1900s is the best one --- even today. I would emphasize it. As you point out, assuming that he read words that appeared is problematic (and Roberts goes into extensive detail about how it is problematic). In "Defense of the Faith and the Saints," he responds to letters from members who were upset with the "manual explanation" (his) because it ran counter to assumptions of very tight translation.

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, rongo said:

Note the pretty obvious inoculation of "rock in a hat." It was brought up pretty much just to bring it up. That may have been new for many there. The emphasis was on the seer stone being like a smart phone (reading words on a lit field). I'm with B.H. Roberts in believing that Joseph did not read words off the stone (David Whitmer's belief), but I appreciate the exposure of this at all. 

This happened at our last Stake conference.  The area authority brought it up without really needing too.  I wonder if there's been some kind of direction given on getting that out there to seem less surprising to people.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The iPhone comparison is laughable. I wish they'd stop making it. No one really things the rock in a hat acted like the iPhone. All it does it make leaders look like they're grasping for anything that could be considered "reasonable" in today's world. But IF Joseph really was reading words directly from a rock like an iPhone then the BoM would be a very tight translation. The room for error, anachronisms, 19th century language, distinctive bible errors unique to Joseph's bible edition, are not explainable. I don't see how one can make an argument for tight translation while also arguing that mistakes are understandable or even expected in the BoM.

 

I thought the whole point of putting the rock in the hat was to block out light?  Why would that be necessary if something wasn't showing up on the rock?  I agree with your opinion on a tight translation though.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This happened at our last Stake conference.  The area authority brought it up without really needing too.  I wonder if there's been some kind of direction given on getting that out there to seem less surprising to people.

We were told that the content and agenda for these worldwide meetings are the same, so inoculating on this is apparently a point of emphasis. The sad thing is that this was discussed at length at the turn of the century (Elder Roberts's treatment of the translation process was in the manual, and it was hotly discussed). Then, somehow, generations grew up without any knowledge of the seer stones and the Church is now trying to prevent Glaubensverlust from troubled members hearing about it for the first time.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I thought the whole point of putting the rock in the hat was to block out light?  Why would that be necessary if something wasn't showing up on the rock?  I agree with your opinion on a tight translation though.

All of the statements on blocking out light are from observers' assumptions that he was reading. Joseph himself was silent on the translation process. Roberts felt that it was to block out distractions and concentrate (I agree with this).

[stemelbow]

Thanks for the notes.   Although after reviewing them I'd say, What a bunch of garbage!

 

hah...just kidding.  Seriously thanks.

SOme obervs:

Quote

What are priesthood keys? (Various typical responses) Priesthood keys are the right to receive revelation for others. Everyone can receive revelation for themselves and their stewardships, but priesthood keys are the right to receive keys for other people and their stewardships in a supervisory capacity. With the exception of stake presidency counselors and ward mission leaders, all of the men here today hold priesthood keys over a quorum, a ward, or a stake.

 

According to this can women not receive revelation for others?  Maybe just their dependent children? 

Quote

Bishops, what is this? (holds up a pen). Elder Rasband didn’t carry one of these at all in his meetings with the Seventy when he was in the presidency. He turned to me and said, “___, write this down.” Bishops, you need to delegate as much as possible. Elders quorum presidents and ward mission leaders: carry a pen to your meetings to write down what the bishop tells you. Bishops, your focus should be on the young men and young women. The quorums should shoulder much of the load you currently carry.

Amen. Think many bishops are dumb.  They need to let go some and let others lead and lessen their own burden.

Quote

Dissent and dissenters are a big problem in the Church today. They come in two colors: those who look beyond the mark (the Brethren and the Church isn’t righteous enough), and the unbelievers (those who are embarrassed by the Church and want it to be more popular). It should be obvious that this should be happening in our day; that we should have dissenters of both colors in our midst right now (lists catalogues of natural disasters, political situations, etc.).

That's a sad and narrow view.  Hopefully the survey someone mentioned around here brings them a better perspective of others.

Quote

We must strengthen our people against the sophistry of dissenters of both colors. The Book of Mormon is the textbook for that.

oooh...Sounds like an effort to get the leaders to snuff out woofs in their wards and stakes.  Witch huntin'?  I hope that doesnt' happen.

Quote

Marriage is under attack. Let me be very, very clear. The Church is not in any way anti-gay. The Church is very clearly pro-traditional marriage. This will never change. We are losing and maybe have already lost the concept of the word family in society, as it is being diluted down to fit other definitions. In everything, teach the ideal of the traditional family. Some can’t or won’t have a traditional family --- we understand that --- but we shouldn’t water down doctrine so that people in non-traditional family situations don’t feel bad.

How can we take their comments seriously after this?  The Church is not in any way anti-gay, but it is opposed to gay marriage?  Isn't that self-contradicting? 

There could be more, but I might go on forever.  Thanks for bringing me in.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

According to this can women not receive revelation for others?  Maybe just their dependent children? 

Very good question!  I'm the YW's president in my ward, but of course I hold no priesthood keys.  Does that mean that I have no ability to receive revelation for those under my stewardship?  

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Very good question!  I'm the YW's president in my ward, but of course I hold no priesthood keys.  Does that mean that I have no ability to receive revelation for those under my stewardship?  

I would guess yes.  But, then it also brings into question for me at least, what does it mean to receive revelation for another?  "I feel inspired we need to talk about this in Young Womens" type of stuff?  Or "Suzie, God says you need to break up with Johnnie right away.  He told me so."?

The former is inspiration, it seems to me and is available to anyone at any time.  Work for instance shows this type of revelation all the time.  The latter just seems silly to me, which some here have remarked makes me a functional atheist.

[Duncan]

Our Stake, apparently is having a special leadership conference next year sometime. That is funny because they did one last or the year before year with Elder Renlund and then another one in 2014 with Elder Christofferson. At the end of Oct. we have stake conference and it will be the first stake conference in a long time with no visitors!

[bsjkki]

I found these two question and answers interesting. Rongo--were you not told not to dispense notes from the meeting on the internet? Before my last Stake Conference, we were told not take notes and then distribute them. 

"8) What can we do about the horrific activity rate among returned missionaries?

Elder 2: Let me correct your statistics. A lot of statistics are just thrown around on the internet, and they become gospel truth simply by virtue of being thrown around on the internet. Our statistics (and we follow this very carefully, as you might imagine) are that 80% of RMs are active in the Church at 2 years after the return.

9) My daughter is dating a boy who told her he has a porn problem. This really put a damper on our enthusiasm for her to be dating this boy. What can we do about worrying about whom our children will marry?

Elder 2: We throw around the word addict a lot in referring to people with porn problems. We have to distinguish between a true addict, and someone who has incidents or episodes (this has to do with frequency and intensity --- i.e., affecting all areas of life)."

Edited September 20, 2017 by bsjkki

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Very good question!  I'm the YW's president in my ward, but of course I hold no priesthood keys.  Does that mean that I have no ability to receive revelation for those under my stewardship?  

You have the right to receive revelation on how to execute your calling but it to yak a Young Woman aside and declare that you have revelatory counsel for them. The Bishop does. This is also why Bishops and Stake Presidents are allowed to make divine promises for things like obedience to certain commandments or counsel.

Sometimes members will wax hyperbolic in making promises on behalf of God they have no right to make.

[The Nehor]

Yeah, while I appreciate you sharing your notes pretty sure distributing them means red imps poke you with pitchforks in the next life.  

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You have the right to receive revelation on how to execute your calling but it to yak a Young Woman aside and declare that you have revelatory counsel for them. The Bishop does. This is also why Bishops and Stake Presidents are allowed to make divine promises for things like obedience to certain commandments or counsel.

Sometimes members will wax hyperbolic in making promises on behalf of God they have no right to make.

I have had a good friend for years.  Back in both of our single years she pined for the love of another man.  He had no interest.  I told her she needed to accept that and move on.  Soon in her sadness speaking with the bishop, she got a blessing.  He told her to keep at it.  That in time he'll break down and see her for who she really is.  So encouraged by revelation another had for her, she spent the next few years wishing for that which never was.  The guy eventually put a stop to any contact with her and he got married.  She moved on after that and got married herself. 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I have had a good friend for years.  Back in both of our single years she pined for the love of another man.  He had no interest.  I told her she needed to accept that and move on.  Soon in her sadness speaking with the bishop, she got a blessing.  He told her to keep at it.  That in time he'll break down and see her for who she really is.  So encouraged by revelation another had for her, she spent the next few years wishing for that which never was.  The guy eventually put a stop to any contact with her and he got married.  She moved on after that and got married herself. 

I should have added that Priesthood keys give you the right to make such declarations but those using them can be wrong. Hence the need in some cases to verify such pronouncements. They can be wrong. Having the right to do something does not mean you are always right to do it.

I obviously cannot speak to that specific story.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I should have added that Priesthood keys give you the right to make such declarations but those using them can be wrong. Hence the need in some cases to verify such pronouncements. They can be wrong. Having the right to do something does not mean you are always right to do it.

I obviously cannot speak to that specific story.

The trick is being able to know what's really revelation and what is not.  It's tough enough to manage that for our own selves now we have to deal with others proclaiming personal revelation for us and figuring out if they are just presumptuous nutballs or genuinely mistaken or misled by the devil. 

Sometimes it feels much easier to just nix this whole wishy-washy-you-can't-really-know-what-god-wants-from-you set up and go with whatever we feel at any given moment, suffering the consequences and moving on. 

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The trick is being able to know what's really revelation and what is not.  It's tough enough to manage that for our own selves now we have to deal with others proclaiming personal revelation for us and figuring out if they are just presumptuous nutballs or genuinely mistaken or misled by the devil. 

Sometimes it feels much easier to just nix this whole wishy-washy-you-can't-really-know-what-god-wants-from-you set up and go with whatever we feel at any given moment, suffering the consequences and moving on. 

I guess revelation just does not seem that hard to me.

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You have the right to receive revelation on how to execute your calling but it to yak a Young Woman aside and declare that you have revelatory counsel for them. The Bishop does. This is also why Bishops and Stake Presidents are allowed to make divine promises for things like obedience to certain commandments or counsel.

Sometimes members will wax hyperbolic in making promises on behalf of God they have no right to make.

Rongo's notes said "Keys are the right to receive keys for other people and their stewardships in a supervisory capacity."  Does this mean that I have no right to receive revelation for the beehive class president, pertaining to her calling, but that the bishop does?  Is that what you are saying?

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I would guess yes.  But, then it also brings into question for me at least, what does it mean to receive revelation for another?  "I feel inspired we need to talk about this in Young Womens" type of stuff?  Or "Suzie, God says you need to break up with Johnnie right away.  He told me so."?

The former is inspiration, it seems to me and is available to anyone at any time.  Work for instance shows this type of revelation all the time.  The latter just seems silly to me, which some here have remarked makes me a functional atheist.

In the notes it seems pretty clear that he's talking about the first kind of thing, because he specifically says "priesthood keys are the right to receive keys for other people and their stewardships in a supervisory capacity."

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Rongo's notes said "Keys are the right to receive keys for other people and their stewardships in a supervisory capacity."  Does this mean that I have no right to receive revelation for the beehive class president, pertaining to her calling, but that the bishop does?  Is that what you are saying?

You have the right to counsel her in her calling but not to declare the will of the Lord in regards to it in an authoritative sense.

You should of course teach her and advise her and seek the spirit with which to counsel her and others well.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The iPhone comparison is laughable. I wish they'd stop making it. No one really things the rock in a hat acted like the iPhone. All it does it make leaders look like they're grasping for anything that could be considered "reasonable" in today's world. But IF Joseph really was reading words directly from a rock like an iPhone then the BoM would be a very tight translation. The room for error, anachronisms, 19th century language, distinctive bible errors unique to Joseph's bible edition, are not explainable. I don't see how one can make an argument for tight translation while also arguing that mistakes are understandable or even expected in the BoM.

The theory falls apart when you look at everything as a whole.  Also, it promotes an idea that God uses supernatural means in a physical world which I really don't like theologically.  All the sudden, rocks do have special powers, Hiram Page's seer stone was evil, not Hiram, but the stone itself, while Joseph's was a divine stone.  It perpetuates this idea that folk magic wasn't just a remnant of 19th century thinking, but that it was objectively real.  

Seer stones, diving rods, handkerchiefs, Satan surfing on the waters, Cain running through the forest, it just seems to perpetuate all these myths about the supernatural which makes the religion increasingly difficult to take seriously in a modern age.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I thought the whole point of putting the rock in the hat was to block out light?  Why would that be necessary if something wasn't showing up on the rock?  I agree with your opinion on a tight translation though.

The rock didn't have a backlit screen, definitely not an OLED screen, more like those really faint LCDs you had on early watches, hard to see in the daylight.