Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference


rongo

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I don't understand why there is so much resistance to admitting change. Wouldn't change be part and parcel with modern revelation? Else why have modern revelation if there wasn't the possibility of change?

Of course, the changes you are talking about show how the church is moving toward mainstream christianity. So, I can see why there is resistance there. It's like admitting the prior doctrines were wrong and that maybe the restoration wasn't needed as much as advertized previously.

The resistance isn't with change its with admitting that we were wrong and made mistakes.

Link to comment
Just now, jkwilliams said:

If a church is led by continuing revelation, shouldn't we expect such evolution?

It's not revelatory change that is the problem, per se. It's when disavowal (or sometimes ignoring) of past teachings comes into play. That doesn't make anyone comfortable. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I hear this idea that everything is unchanging all the time at church on Sunday.  I think its a way of orienting toward the church psychologically that gives people comfort that they can trust the church.  If the church were changing some would lose trust, and so they repeat this idea that nothing ever changes, that truths aren't relative because they fear the alternative.  I don't think many people have wrestled with moral dilemma's very much as this is a very simple way of orienting, and its supported by surface readings of certain scriptures about God not changing, etc.  

I think that is supposed to be where Faith in Christ comes in, do we trust him and trust his guidance of the Church? I totally agree with the idea that we all want revelation but how many of us want to change?

Link to comment
Just now, jkwilliams said:

If a church is led by continuing revelation, shouldn't we expect such evolution?

One would think. However, too much change opens the church up to claims that it is just following society's lead and isn't led by God at all, as in the priesthood ban and subsequent changes to it. So, I can see where Scott would resist admitting change had occurred as he did above.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, rongo said:

The apostasy was the parents, in my view. The girl was a tool. I mean, they filmed it for viral distribution, for crying out loud! She read a prepared statement that clearly was not written by her. F&T meeting is not the venue for manifestos ---- least of all when using a child for viral sympathy and attack points.

Your facts are wrong on this Rongo.

The parents did not record nor did they release the recording. One of Savannah's friends did that. The parents held their daughter back for months from bearing her testimony but finally allowed her to give it as she prepared. Such terrible, apostate parents...right? How dare a person read a prepared remark. Have you never seen that done? I have. I've also seen people share lyrics, poetry, scriptures etc. Apparently only extemporaneous testimonies are real testimonies. This topic gets my blood boiling. The judgment heaped upon this girl and her parents is cruel. So please, at least get the details right. It's been discussed numerous times and there are multiple news stories and podcasts to reference if you need detail. 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think that is supposed to be where Faith in Christ comes in, do we trust him and trust his guidance of the Church? I totally agree with the idea that we all want revelation but how many of us want to change?

I would agree, there is a component of letting go that is required with this idea of change.  I think many Mormon's including myself for much of my life, might more naturally lean towards a less mature dependence.  Ironically, its a central part of the message of the gospel to let go and trust God, yet there are other messages in our culture that run counter to this idea.  

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Your facts are wrong on this Rongo.

The parents did not record nor did they release the recording. One of Savannah's friends did that. The parents held their daughter back for months from bearing her testimony but finally allowed her to give it as she prepared. Such terrible, apostate parents...right? How dare a person read a prepared remark. Have you never seen that done? I have. I've also seen people share lyrics, poetry, scriptures etc. Apparently only extemporaneous testimonies are real testimonies. This topic gets my blood boiling. The judgment heaped upon this girl and her parents is cruel. So please, at least get the details right. It's been discussed numerous times and there are multiple news stories and podcasts to reference if you need detail. 

I don't think anyone can actually speak to what the facts are. We all carry our assumptions into this.

A) What Savannah and her parents say should be given full face value. The parents tried to stop her from doing it. They only reluctantly helped her with the wording after it became clear that she was going to do it. They didn't want it recorded, and had no control over friends recording and distributing it. 

B) This was a planned thing, with the parents full support and participation.

Neither of us (not you, not I) can actually demonstrate which of these is actually the truth, based on the news accounts and interviews. For the sake of argument, there would be a vested interest in portraying things a certain way in the media, akin to a basketball player "selling" a charge and not wanting to be called for a blocking foul. While I concede that it is possible that the parents' and Savannah's version of events are, in fact, completely factual, do you likewise concede that they might be spinning things, and even being untruthful, in order to inflict maximum PR damage and gain maximum PR advantage?

Ultimately, the issue becomes a mirror of our own biases and inclinations. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think anyone can actually speak to what the facts are. We all carry our assumptions into this.

A) What Savannah and her parents say should be given full face value. The parents tried to stop her from doing it. They only reluctantly helped her with the wording after it became clear that she was going to do it. They didn't want it recorded, and had no control over friends recording and distributing it. 

B) This was a planned thing, with the parents full support and participation.

Neither of us (not you, not I) can actually demonstrate which of these is actually the truth, based on the news accounts and interviews. For the sake of argument, there would be a vested interest in portraying things a certain way in the media, akin to a basketball player "selling" a charge and not wanting to be called for a blocking foul. While I concede that it is possible that the parents' and Savannah's version of events are, in fact, completely factual, do you likewise concede that they might be spinning things, and even being untruthful, in order to inflict maximum PR damage and gain maximum PR advantage?

Ultimately, the issue becomes a mirror of our own biases and inclinations. 

True, there is bias in how we interpret the information given.

1- We can either believe people are telling the truth and are generally decent human beings or

2- We can assume the worst motives, call them apostates, and call them liars.

One of those approaches seems more Christian than the other

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Nothing of significance, button.  I suppose that one might consider the lifting of the priesthood ban to be a major change, but I don't see it that way.  I can't exactly say why I don't see it that way, but I do.  

The church has been true for me since 1966, and nothing has changed in that respect.  

 

I suspect it's likely because the change was prophecies of and expected eventually.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Gray said:

 

It's really not.

http://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/jodhtml.php?vol=04&disc=42

 

 

This is totally alien compared to what the church teaches today.

So cherry-picked quotations is what you're talking about then?

That occurred to me after I posted my response to you.

Do you really think it's fair and accurate to use an isolated quote here and there as the basis for concluding that the church in the late 1800s is "totally alien" to the Church of today?

To say that is overwrought is an understatement.

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So cherry-picked quotations is what you're talking about then?

That occurred to me after I posted my response to you.

Do you really think it's fair and accurate to use an isolated quote here and there as the basis for concluding that the church in the late 1800s is "totally alien" to the Church of today?

To say that is overwrought is an understatement.

The modern LDS church is not a place where any church leader could or would stand up and teach something like that. Totally different place.

All quotations are subject to accusations of "cherry picking", whether those accusations have merit or not. The fact that this could be said in that church is more than enough to demonstrate my point.

Edited by Gray
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Duncan said:

I think these kinds of fasts were what Elder McConkie spoke out against at BYU in the early 1980's. To me, once a month is enough

it's been a while since I've read that particular counsel but I've always have always been under the impression that Elder McConkie was warning against excessive fasting to been seen as spiritual. Specifically like how Jesus warned in matt 6.

I've always understood fasting to be done with wisdom and thought out purpose. Not just going without food but with planning. For example my health keeps me from fasting as I would like so when I do fast I need to be deliberate and make sure use wisdom more.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Gray said:

Mortal perfection can be achieved as we try to perform every duty, keep every law, and strive to be as perfect in our sphere as our Heavenly Father is in his. If we do the best we can, the Lord will bless us according to our deeds and the desires of our hearts. 9

In the very same sentence, it talks about how we should "do the best we can" and should strive to be perfect "in our sphere." That strikes me as being different than what you assumed. We can be perfect, for example, in tithe paying or Sabbath day observance or obedience to the Word of Wisdom. That's what it seems to me this is talking about.

The other quote seems taken out of context as well.

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Gray said:

The modern LDS church is not a place where any church leader could or would stand up and teach something like that. Totally different place.

All quotations are subject to accusations of "cherry picking", whether those accusations are baseless or not. The fact that this could be said in that church is more than enough to demonstrate my point.

Can you imagine Brigham Young having to submit his conference talks to Correlation for approval? :lol:

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

True, there is bias in how we interpret the information given.

1- We can either believe people are telling the truth and are generally decent human beings or

2- We can assume the worst motives, call them apostates, and call them liars.

One of those approaches seems more Christian than the other

Exactly.  They also had no idea that the young girl would not be allowed to finish.  If she had been allowed to read the last sentence or two and then sit down, there would not have been the negative PR surrounding this.  It could have even been a good thing for the church if they'd reported how the Bishop and ward members loved this young girl and accepted her and embraced her afterwards. ( I'm sure, however, they must have known there was a possibility that she might not be allowed to read her entire statement.)

I think she got to church, prepared to read her statement and thought her Bishop would be conducting (who if we believe her, did love & support her and knew she was gay).  She did decide to go ahead with her plans when she learned he was not there.  It might have been better if she'd waited until he was and it might have played out differently....but who knows?

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Gray said:

I assume "solid state devices" is meant to be a pun? Solid state devices are electronics that don't use the old vacuum tubes (these days vacuum tubes are found mostly in guitar amps). Rocks are solid but of course they're not literally "solid state devices".

......................................................   

You may be missing the point, which is that solid state devices are rocks -- semiconductors made from silicon, gallium, arsenide, germanium, etc.  The crystal sets which we played with as kids (I'm an old guy) were rocks, natural crystals which we manipulated with wires to receive radio waves.  Solar cells are semiconductors made from crystalline silicon.  An LED is a semiconductor, a rock which is stimulated with a small voltage into providing electroluminescence for a readable screen.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

True, there is bias in how we interpret the information given.

1- We can either believe people are telling the truth and are generally decent human beings or

2- We can assume the worst motives, call them apostates, and call them liars.

One of those approaches seems more Christian than the other

All things being equal, people should be taken at face value. 

All things are not equal with the Savannah incident. There is clearly an agenda, and there is an aftermath. This was planned and done in a sacrament meeting (I know, I know --- the friends had just come to record it so Savannah could share it with her LGBT club). I don't think it's unChristian to be skeptical of motives and "aw, shucks" posturing here. The text of Savannah's written text alone makes me suspicious.

But, as we've both acknowledged, people will pretty much segregate themselves along "party lines" according to their pre-existing biases. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You may be missing the point, which is that solid state devices are rocks -- semiconductors made from silicon, gallium, arsenide, germanium, etc.  The crystal sets which we played with as kids (I'm an old guy) were rocks, natural crystals which we manipulated with wires to receive radio waves.  Solar cells are semiconductors made from crystalline silicon.  An LED is a semiconductor, a rock which is stimulated with a small voltage into providing electroluminescence for a readable screen.

Maybe that's the problem - I never had a crystal radio set!

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

True, there is bias in how we interpret the information given.

1- We can either believe people are telling the truth and are generally decent human beings or

2- We can assume the worst motives, call them apostates, and call them liars.

One of those approaches seems more Christian than the other

This is true for pretty much every discussion/debate that happens in the church (or on this board) and not just those dealing with people who leave.  

It would probably be good for all of us to remember that, no matter what the subject, it's good practice to assume the best about people who do things or believe things that we disagree with.  To often we feel comfortable with speculation that only focuses on the worst motives or interpretations, and think that because everyone knows we are speculating that makes it o.k.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

it's been a while since I've read that particular counsel but I've always have always been under the impression that Elder McConkie was warning against excessive fasting to been seen as spiritual. Specifically like how Jesus warned in matt 6.

I've always understood fasting to be done with wisdom and thought out purpose. Not just going without food but with planning. For example my health keeps me from fasting as I would like so when I do fast I need to be deliberate and make sure use wisdom more.

for sure but impressionable university students can be taken in with fads and whatnot. A sad story from my sister's ward a young married woman , her and husband were in some mormony paramilitary group and she starved to death. It's a balance and we need not go one way or the other

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In the very same sentence, it talks about how we should "do the best we can" and should strive to be perfect "in our sphere." That strikes me as being different than what you assumed. We can be perfect, for example, in tithe paying or Sabbath day observance or obedience to the Word of Wisdom. That's what it seems to me this is talking about.

The other quote seems taken out of context as well.

 

It's not out of context. This kind of talk about achieving perfection was common. They weren't saying you could live your life without making a mistake, but they were saying you could become perfect with enough work.

That doctrine has fallen out of favor.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This again?

You tried this with me, and I gave you a whole laundry list.

How long are you going to keep beating this drum?

 

And I responded to your post by saying that there is plenty of evidence and pointed you to a couple Mormon authors who've written large books on this subject specifically.  What are you missing?  

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...