conference today

[ERMD]

On 9/30/2017 at 3:27 PM, Button Gwinnett said:

I'm one of those who is slightly disappointed. The process, that Elder Oaks shared, while having taken a very lengthy thoughtful process that he called revelatory and inspirational, seems more like a lawyerly, researched and calculated process to protect the church than a revelatory one.  I can't image how we would process Joseph's revelations in the D&C if God had revealed each section over the course of a year to 18 months through a committee of men who labored and prayed over each word.  For those who have always believed that it came about through direct revelation, Elder Oaks provided room for disappointment that it came about through a long lengthy but thoughtful committee process instead of from God's mouth to his prophets ear.

This just solidifies in my mind the reality of Joseph's role as the prophet of the Restoration.  He was uniquely endowed with the ability to produce the volume of revelation needed to establish the Church and restore all that was needed in the process.  Considering the spiritual giants who lead the Church today, and having a glimpse into what it took to produce the Proclamation makes what Joseph accomplished all the more miraculous and unique.

I think Elder Oaks made it quite clear that the Proclamation is revelation and not policy, eternal and not a stop-gap.  I have to wonder where that leaves all who are holding out for the First Presidency and the Twelve to come to their senses regarding SSM and the November statement.

 

On 9/30/2017 at 3:27 PM, Button Gwinnett said:

.

 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, ERMD said:

This just solidifies in my mind the reality of Joseph's role as the prophet of the Restoration.  He was uniquely endowed with the ability to produce the volume of revelation needed to establish the Church and restore all that was needed in the process.  Considering the spiritual giants who lead the Church today, and having a glimpse into what it took to produce the Proclamation makes what Joseph accomplished all the more miraculous and unique.

True.

2 hours ago, ERMD said:

I think Elder Oaks made it quite clear that the Proclamation is revelation and not policy, eternal and not a stop-gap. 

Except there is no proof or evidence for this.
The Proclamation may be 100% true.  It may even be 100% inspired (ie, prayed over).
But there is no proof or evidence that a single word of it was given from the mouth of God.

I made the statement elsewhere recently that the Church today doesn't differentiate between inspiration and revelation (even though I think they should) and I was corrected with a wonderful quote:

• How to Obtain Revelation and Inspiration for Your Personal Life
  By Elder Richard G. Scott April 2012
  The Holy Ghost communicates important information that we need to guide us in our mortal journey. When it is crisp and clear and essential, it warrants the title of revelation. When it is a series of promptings we often have to guide us step by step to a worthy objective, for the purpose of this message, it is inspiration.

So, how was the Proclamation given?  Crisp, clear, essential.  Or as a series of promptings.
If it was edited, drafted, adjusted step by step I would say that at best is inspiration, not revelation.  
If it was given clearly, crisply to the prophet THEN perhaps we can call it a revelation.  Remember what Joseph said about D&C 132:

• The Prophet consented and told William Clayton to get some paper to write; but to his brother's "urgent request" that the Prophet use the Urim and Thummim to recall the exact revelation, Joseph replied that he did not need it, "for he knew the revelation from beginning to end".

 

Edited October 9, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Rain]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

True.

Except there is no proof or evidence for this.
The Proclamation may be 100% true.  It may even be 100% inspired (ie, prayed over).
But there is no proof or evidence that a single word of it was given from the mouth of God.

I made the statement elsewhere recently that the Church today doesn't differentiate between inspiration and revelation (even though I think they should) and I was corrected with a wonderful quote:

• How to Obtain Revelation and Inspiration for Your Personal Life
  By Elder Richard G. Scott April 2012
  The Holy Ghost communicates important information that we need to guide us in our mortal journey. When it is crisp and clear and essential, it warrants the title of revelation. When it is a series of promptings we often have to guide us step by step to a worthy objective, for the purpose of this message, it is inspiration.

So, how was the Proclamation given?  Crisp, clear, essential.  Or as a series of promptings.
If it was edited, drafted, adjusted step by step I would say that at best is inspiration, not revelation.  
If it was given clearly, crisply to the prophet THEN perhaps we can call it a revelation.  Remember what Joseph said about D&C 132:

• The Prophet consented and told William Clayton to get some paper to write; but to his brother's "urgent request" that the Prophet use the Urim and Thummim to recall the exact revelation, Joseph replied that he did not need it, "for he knew the revelation from beginning to end".

 

Or it could have been both.  Perhaps some was clear, crisp and essential and some was a series of promptings.  Who knows.

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, Rain said:

Or it could have been both.  Perhaps some was clear, crisp and essential and some was a series of promptings.  Who knows.

Only the prophet that received it.  And he never said.  If he didn't say it came as a revelation I'm not sure we have any right to.

[Rain]

45 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Only the prophet that received it.  And he never said.  If he didn't say it came as a revelation I'm not sure we have any right to.

Right.  It wasn't really a question.  I was just trying to say that it could have been both, but we don't know.  I was afraid I wasn't making that clear.  Sorry.

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

True.

Except there is no proof or evidence for this.
The Proclamation may be 100% true.  It may even be 100% inspired (ie, prayed over).
But there is no proof or evidence that a single word of it was given from the mouth of God.

I made the statement elsewhere recently that the Church today doesn't differentiate between inspiration and revelation (even though I think they should) and I was corrected with a wonderful quote:

• How to Obtain Revelation and Inspiration for Your Personal Life
  By Elder Richard G. Scott April 2012
  The Holy Ghost communicates important information that we need to guide us in our mortal journey. When it is crisp and clear and essential, it warrants the title of revelation. When it is a series of promptings we often have to guide us step by step to a worthy objective, for the purpose of this message, it is inspiration.

So, how was the Proclamation given?  Crisp, clear, essential.  Or as a series of promptings.
If it was edited, drafted, adjusted step by step I would say that at best is inspiration, not revelation.  
If it was given clearly, crisply to the prophet THEN perhaps we can call it a revelation.  Remember what Joseph said about D&C 132:

• The Prophet consented and told William Clayton to get some paper to write; but to his brother's "urgent request" that the Prophet use the Urim and Thummim to recall the exact revelation, Joseph replied that he did not need it, "for he knew the revelation from beginning to end".

 

I am not sure there is a difference.  You stated it "may be 100% true."  If it is true what does it matter if it comes through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit or through direct revelation i.e. the voice of God?  The result is the same - a true statement.  You are splitting hairs and finding no difference.

[JLHPROF]

46 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I am not sure there is a difference.  You stated it "may be 100% true."  If it is true what does it matter if it comes through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit or through direct revelation i.e. the voice of God?  The result is the same - a true statement.  You are splitting hairs and finding no difference.

What does it matter if God speaks directly to us vs a group of men praying and coming up with something true?  I'd say it matters.

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

True.

Except there is no proof or evidence for this.
The Proclamation may be 100% true.  It may even be 100% inspired (ie, prayed over).
But there is no proof or evidence that a single word of it was given from the mouth of God.

I made the statement elsewhere recently that the Church today doesn't differentiate between inspiration and revelation (even though I think they should) and I was corrected with a wonderful quote:

• How to Obtain Revelation and Inspiration for Your Personal Life
  By Elder Richard G. Scott April 2012
  The Holy Ghost communicates important information that we need to guide us in our mortal journey. When it is crisp and clear and essential, it warrants the title of revelation. When it is a series of promptings we often have to guide us step by step to a worthy objective, for the purpose of this message, it is inspiration.

So, how was the Proclamation given?  Crisp, clear, essential.  Or as a series of promptings.
If it was edited, drafted, adjusted step by step I would say that at best is inspiration, not revelation.  
If it was given clearly, crisply to the prophet THEN perhaps we can call it a revelation.  Remember what Joseph said about D&C 132:

• The Prophet consented and told William Clayton to get some paper to write; but to his brother's "urgent request" that the Prophet use the Urim and Thummim to recall the exact revelation, Joseph replied that he did not need it, "for he knew the revelation from beginning to end".

 

There is never any proof that something is revelation though, right?  There is no proof that the BOM was given from the mouth of God (whatever that means).  

But I'm with storm rider, i don't see why it matters.  Can you explain why you think it matters if a revelation comes all at once or through a series of revealed information and promptings?  Is there a scripture or something that says that revelation can't come that way?

[Storm Rider]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

What does it matter if God speaks directly to us vs a group of men praying and coming up with something true?  I'd say it matters.

It sounded like your issue was if God inspires the leadership versus God talks directly to them - that is splitting hairs.  The Church has always taught that God speaks directly to the members.  You are all over the map on this.  Sometimes we have a beef with something and then throw everything at the wall in frustration.  God talks to humans - most of the time it is inspiration. However, there are those few times when it is clear as a bell and it is as if God was talking directly to us.  Then there are those even rarer situations when God appears and talks to humans.  Now what?  It does not mean a hill of beans unless we are willing to follow, be obedient, and heed him. 

[Atheist Mormon]

On 9/30/2017 at 10:47 AM, smac97 said:

Was lucky.  Got tickets.  Here's the view...

Do I have to be a member to get a ticket?

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Do I have to be a member to get a ticket?

Nope.  You have a pretty good shot just by showing up a bit early and getting in the Standby Line.  In the alternative, you can ask your local bishop for a ticket.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Atheist Mormon]

On 10/10/2017 at 4:01 PM, smac97 said:

Nope.  You have a pretty good shot just by showing up a bit early and getting in the Standby Line.  In the alternative, you can ask your local bishop for a ticket.

Thanks,

-Smac

You know Smac. I like your posts, but can you quit punctuating your posts with "thanks".

"Thanks".

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

You know Smac. I like your posts, but can you quit punctuating your posts with "thanks".

"Thanks".

I'll think on it.  Why do ask?

[Kenngo1969]

11 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

You know Smac. I like your posts, but can you quit punctuating your posts with "thanks".

"Thanks".

 

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I'll think on it.  Why do ask?

Of all of the things to get a bee in one's britches about ...  

I work as a Lexus Destination Assist agent.  Rather than having drivers try to program their own GPSes on the fly (thereby endangering the motoring public) they call us and we download the destinations for them.  I did that for a guy one time, and he said he wanted to register a complaint.  So I conferenced the call in with one of our customer service reps, and he spends the next eight minutes (remember, one of the things I'm scored on is call handle time) going around and around with the CSR about, "Why do you guys always say, 'Don't forget to press "Go to" or "Enter" when the destination comes up on your screen'?"

Including that phrase takes all of five seconds, and, while the caller is right that most of the time, it isn't necessary, Murphy's Law applies: when we don't say it, that's going to be when the customer says, "Wait, wait, wait!  What am I supposed to do when the destination shows up on my screen?!"

Atheist, I guess all I can say is that I'm glad everything else is going so swimmingly well in your life that the thing that seems to bug you the most is a simple expression of gratitude as a sign-off.  

(I hope Bill Reel isn't lurking about these parts, or that, if he is, he doesn't happen to see this thread.  His pet peeve is my use of emoticons.  )

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

(I hope Bill Reel isn't lurking about these parts, or that, if he is, he doesn't happen to see this thread.  His pet peeve is my use of emoticons.  )

One of my pet peeves is his use of "cut-and-dry" when it should be cut and dried.

Another is his nearly constant use of the cliché "Today, I sit down with ..." to introduce his podcasts.

 

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

Of all of the things to get a bee in one's britches about ...  

I work as a Lexus Destination Assist agent.  Rather than having drivers try to program their own GPSes on the fly (thereby endangering the motoring public) they call us and we download the destinations for them.  I did that for a guy one time, and he said he wanted to register a complaint.  So I conferenced the call in with one of our customer service reps, and he spends the next eight minutes (remember, one of the things I'm scored on is call handle time) going around and around with the CSR about, "Why do you guys always say, 'Don't forget to press "Go to" or "Enter" when the destination comes up on your screen'?"

Including that phrase takes all of five seconds, and, while the caller is right that most of the time, it isn't necessary, Murphy's Law applies: when we don't say it, that's going to be when the customer says, "Wait, wait, wait!  What am I supposed to do when the destination shows up on my screen?!"

Atheist, I guess all I can say is that I'm glad everything else is going so swimmingly well in your life that the thing that seems to bug you the most is a simple expression of gratitude as a sign-off.  

(I hope Bill Reel isn't lurking about these parts, or that, if he is, he doesn't happen to see this thread.  His pet peeve is my use of emoticons.  )

I didn't get the impression he was that bothered by it.  

Until Atheist said something, I always in the back of my mind assumed it was  Smac's automatic signature, but now I see it isn't. Now, I'm curious as to why he uses it on every post.

[Calm]

I am curious...do you (Ken) use your hands a lot when you talk or make exaggerated facial expressions.

I would love to do a study to see if use of emoticons are associated with the above.  

For you, Ken:

https://blog.bufferapp.com/7-reasons-use-emoticons-writing-social-media-according-science

[Calm]

Just now, Rain said:

I didn't get the impression he was that bothered by it.  

Until Atheist said something, I always in the back of my mind assumed it was  Smac's automatic signature, but now I see it isn't. Now, I'm curious as to why he uses it on every post.

Civility?

[Atheist Mormon]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'll think on it.  Why do ask?

Sorry, it's funny and very old fashioned cordial...........

[Scott Lloyd]

On 10/9/2017 at 3:49 PM, JLHPROF said:

True.

Except there is no proof or evidence for this.
The Proclamation may be 100% true.  It may even be 100% inspired (ie, prayed over).
But there is no proof or evidence that a single word of it was given from the mouth of God.

I made the statement elsewhere recently that the Church today doesn't differentiate between inspiration and revelation (even though I think they should) and I was corrected with a wonderful quote:

• How to Obtain Revelation and Inspiration for Your Personal Life
  By Elder Richard G. Scott April 2012
  The Holy Ghost communicates important information that we need to guide us in our mortal journey. When it is crisp and clear and essential, it warrants the title of revelation. When it is a series of promptings we often have to guide us step by step to a worthy objective, for the purpose of this message, it is inspiration.

So, how was the Proclamation given?  Crisp, clear, essential.  Or as a series of promptings.
If it was edited, drafted, adjusted step by step I would say that at best is inspiration, not revelation.  
If it was given clearly, crisply to the prophet THEN perhaps we can call it a revelation.  Remember what Joseph said about D&C 132:

• The Prophet consented and told William Clayton to get some paper to write; but to his brother's "urgent request" that the Prophet use the Urim and Thummim to recall the exact revelation, Joseph replied that he did not need it, "for he knew the revelation from beginning to end".

 

 

On 10/9/2017 at 9:55 PM, Storm Rider said:

I am not sure there is a difference.  You stated it "may be 100% true."  If it is true what does it matter if it comes through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit or through direct revelation i.e. the voice of God?  The result is the same - a true statement.  You are splitting hairs and finding no difference.

Revelation is an umbrella term that includes inspiration and other forms of revelation, such as visions, dreams, divine visitations, "sudden strokes of ideas," etc.

I agree that if it comes from God, there should be no fuss made over the form that it takes.

 

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am curious...do you (Ken) use your hands a lot when you talk or make exaggerated facial expressions.

I would love to do a study to see if use of emoticons are associated with the above.  

For you, Ken:

https://blog.bufferapp.com/7-reasons-use-emoticons-writing-social-media-according-science

Huh. I used to use my hands a LOT when talking, until I got teased so much about it that it mostly went away.  I sometimes wonder if my lack of being able to come up with vocabulary words is tied to not using my hands.  I wonder if I would have used emoticons earlier in life had they been a thing. 

[Atheist Mormon]

32 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

Of all of the things to get a bee in one's britches about ...  

I work as a Lexus Destination Assist agent.  Rather than having drivers try to program their own GPSes on the fly (thereby endangering the motoring public) they call us and we download the destinations for them.  I did that for a guy one time, and he said he wanted to register a complaint.  So I conferenced the call in with one of our customer service reps, and he spends the next eight minutes (remember, one of the things I'm scored on is call handle time) going around and around with the CSR about, "Why do you guys always say, 'Don't forget to press "Go to" or "Enter" when the destination comes up on your screen'?"

Including that phrase takes all of five seconds, and, while the caller is right that most of the time, it isn't necessary, Murphy's Law applies: when we don't say it, that's going to be when the customer says, "Wait, wait, wait!  What am I supposed to do when the destination shows up on my screen?!"

Atheist, I guess all I can say is that I'm glad everything else is going so swimmingly well in your life that the thing that seems to bug you the most is a simple expression of gratitude as a sign-off.  

(I hope Bill Reel isn't lurking about these parts, or that, if he is, he doesn't happen to see this thread.  His pet peeve is my use of emoticons.  )

I wish Everything was going well for me Kenngo...I'm still cleaning up after harvey (in Houston). But I like you guys with your subtle humors, having lived half of my life in Utah, I miss my Mormon culture 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Sorry, it's funny and very old fashioned cordial...........

Saying thanks is funny and old fashioned?

I guess I've lived too long.

 

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Revelation is an umbrella term that includes inspiration and other forms of revelation, such as visions, dreams, divine visitations, "sudden strokes of ideas," etc.

I agree that if it comes from God, there should be no fuss made over the form that it takes.

 

If they get up and say the Lord spoke to his prophets and told him XYZ that is very different to me than the prophets saying he prayed and felt good about a decision.

One is much more likely to be man made.  Assuming we believe God still speaks to man.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If they get up and say the Lord spoke to his prophets and told him XYZ that is very different to me than the prophets saying he prayed and felt good about a decision.

One is much more likely to be man made.  Assuming we believe God still speaks to man.

What the above remark does is marginalize impressions to the mind as a medium for divine communication. You are entitled to do that, but don't expect others to be bound by it.

I would add that impressions to the mind are far and away the more common means by which God speaks to mortals, whether prophets or not, than any other means, be it visions, divine visitation, dreams, audible words, divine instruments such as seer stones, etc. To marginalize it is to run the risk of missing what God would impart.

Finally, for one experienced in receiving communication from God, such as a prophet, seer and revelator, there is a definite distinction between such communication expressed as impressions to the mind and heart vs. merely "feeling good about" something.

 

Edited October 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd